§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
9.56 pm§ Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)Last week, the Prime Minister was in New York, participating in the 50th anniversary celebration of the founding of the United Nations. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the UN, and the Labour Government, building on the work of the wartime coalition, played a key role in its establishment on 24 October 1945. The Prime Minister was able to speak to the United Nations General Assembly on 23 October 1995.
In two weeks' time, on 16 November, there will take place in Paris the 50th anniversary celebrations of another important international organisation—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation—yet, as things stand, no British Minister will attend or speak, as our Government will be absent as a member of that 184-state forum, only sending officials along to observe.
That is especially saddening, because the United Kingdom played the leading role in founding UNESCO, which was established as a result of a British initiative taken in 1942, during the war. UNESCO was established and its constitution deposited in London, where its headquarters was initially based, and its first director-general and its assistant director-general for science were British.
The principle aim of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security by 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 that are affirmed in the charter of the United Nations.
For many years, UNESCO did very good work, with Britain having a dominating influence in every aspect—professional or otherwise. However, there were growing criticisms, which led, in 1984, at the height of the cold war, to the withdrawal of the United States, followed, one year later, by a similar decision by our Government.
The following reasons were given at the time: the Government thought that the so-called new world information and communication order was a potential threat to the freedom of the media; the concept of people's rights was controversial and was thought to challenge the universal declaration of human rights; there was thought to be some threat to freedom of transnational corporations to operate; there was thought to be duplication of the work of some other UN agencies.
§ It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
§ Mr. GapesThere was thought to be some lack of control over budgets, and much inefficiency in the administrative structures within UNESCO at that time. The organisation was also criticised for having too many people based at its headquarters and too few out in the field.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs considered the withdrawal from UNESCO in 1985. It came to the conclusion, shared by the Conservative majority on the 204 Select Committee—since 1979, all Select Committees on Foreign Affairs have had a Conservative majority—that withdrawal from UNESCO would be prejudicial to Britain's interests in science, culture and education, was likely to damage Britain's relations with the Commonwealth and the third world, and could have unhappy consequences for Britain's relationship with the United Nations as a whole.
In 1990, following the experience of Britain being outside UNESCO for five years, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs returned to the issue. It concluded that, because of its absence from UNESCO, Britain was failing to participate in important international initiatives in the fields of education, science and culture as fully as it might. Its report stated:
never has the need for such initiatives been greater, as political events in Europe, and all over the world, create a demand … which UNESCO is well designed to satisfy.The Committee praised the work of the new director-general, Frederico Mayor, who had been elected in November 1987, and said that he was addressing those parts of the programmes to which the British Government had objected. It said that his proposals for structural reform held much promise. The Committee concluded in 1990 that, assuming those proposals were satisfactorily implemented,we see no reason why the UK should not rejoin UNESCO in a year's time.The Government rejected the Select Committee's recommendations, and said:We will continue to monitor developments in UNESCO closely and look forward to the day when we can join a reformed organisation.The Select Committee returned to the issue again in 1993 when it stated:The British Government's objections to UNESCO's policies have been overcome. The only serious criticism of UNESCO still outstanding is the complaint that the organisation's expenditure and personnel are still concentrated at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris rather than being devolved to the field in those countries where UNESCO is working.The then Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has now moved on to agricultural matters, said in his evidence to the Select Committee, that "the objections" to rejoining UNESCO were "financial". The Committee report concluded:The debate about UNESCO's policy, budgetary and management problems has been settled, broadly in the organisation's favour. Although further decentralisation is needed, we recommend that the United Kingdom should now seek to rejoin UNESCO".Since the Government took us out of UNESCO in 1985, three Foreign Affairs Select Committees have considered the issue in detail and have recommended that we should rejoin. Despite their concerns, the Government have kept Britain out. Why? The main official reason is that "the objections are financial". The Foreign Affairs Committee was told that the cost of rejoining would have to be met from the existing Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Overseas Development Administration budget. But is that necessarily true?The 1993 Select Committee report pointed out:
We do not commend the Government's approach to UNESCO as an inevitable competitor with the ODA for a share of a limited budget. UNESCO's remit is by no means simply that of a channel for development aid: UNESCO's constitution describes the organisation's role as promoting international collaboration through 205 education, science and culture to encourage universal respect for justice, the rule of law and the fundamental human rights and freedoms as affirmed in the UN Charter. Its work, in both developed and developing countries, includes the promotion of the free flow of ideas through the means of mass communication, advancing educational opportunities, conserving the world's cultural inheritance and encouraging co-operation in all branches of intellectual activity".The £10 million to £11 million subscription fee for rejoining UNESCO is a gross figure. It does not take account of income that could come to this country to partly, or perhaps wholly, offset that sum. It is a modest figure in relation to the total dues that we pay for membership of international organisations. The United Kingdom has always gained at least as much from UNESCO as we put into it. If we calculated our gains on purely selfish, material grounds, there is a strong case for rejoining UNESCO now. However, I submit that we should look at it in the wider context of what we lose by remaining outside UNESCO, and what we would gain by rejoining it.If the cost of rejoining were £11 million, that would represent 0.31 per cent. of the total Foreign and Commonwealth Office-ODA budget. The Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out in 1993:
only a third of the estimated cost would have to be found from new sources".That was because we were funding some UNESCO activities, even though we were outside the organisation. In 1991, the Select Committee was told that United Kingdom and United Kingdom-related receipts from UNESCO totalled £9.5 million. In 1994, such receipts amounted to twice the sum paid by the United Kingdom as its assessed contribution.The £11 million subscription is a gross figure, and payments to United Kingdom nationals employed by UNESCO, whether in Paris or in the field, were not taken into consideration. Rejoining UNESCO would allow an increased participation by United Kingdom nationals in the organisation's staff. Like other international organisations, UNESCO employs United Kingdom staff. However, since we left UNESCO, it has not recruited new British staff to fill vacant positions. Consequently, the United Kingdom component of UNESCO's staff, which used to be disproportionately large, has been declining year by year. The result is that British influence, Britain's contribution, and Britain's abilities and skills in this important international organisation are increasingly absent.
We are now far less able to influence the outcome of decisions taken by UNESCO, and our diplomatic influence has been correspondingly reduced. I must emphasise that UNESCO is not an aid programme, and the costs of membership should not come solely from the aid budget. Other departmental budgets, including those governing educational, cultural and scientific expenditure, should also be taken into consideration.
In 1993, the then Minister of State told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:
Of course we can join, we can go back in tomorrow, but in order to do that we have to findthe money,because we are not going to get any new money".206 More recently, however, the argument seems to have shifted away from cost. The Under-Secretary of State informed the House in an answer dated 22 May 1995 that the Government's objections had widened. There had been some progress, he said, with regard to bureaucracy, overspending, mismanagement, inefficiency and political bias, but not enough. It would seem, therefore, that, since the Select Committee's report of 1993, the Government have moved away from their previous financial objection, and seem now to be taking a more hard-line position.Could this have something to do with the fact that, in 1993, it appeared that the United States, under President Clinton and with a Democrat-dominated Congress, was about to rejoin UNESCO; but that now, with a Republican Congress, the Americans have started to get cold feet? For the Government, the logic of and justification for rejoining does not seem to be quite as apparent as it was then.
The Government official line is that the matter is still under review, but the fact is that there has been no Government review of the workings of UNESCO in the past decade. The only organisation to have carried out such a review is the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which has three times recommended that we rejoin.
As for the latest developments, I have already mentioned the Prime Minister's speech to the United Nations. In it he said that there were some bodies that we should scrap—without specifying which. Significantly, the Financial Times and The Times of 24 October, in almost identically worded reports, said that British officials
have made it clear that agencies such as UNCTAD, the UN trade agency, UNIDO, the industrial development organisation, UNESCO, the scientific and cultural organisation, as well as the five regional economic commissions should be part of any review".Does that mean that the Government's position has hardened even more? Instead of just saying that £11 million has to be found, suddenly the Government are assaulting the entire organisation in an attempt to destroy its very existence. I should be grateful if the Minister reassured us tonight that the Prime Minister's speech at the UN did not envisage an attack on UNESCO, and that the unnamed British officials either do not exist or were plain wrong. I would welcome a reassurance that the Government are still committed to rejoining UNESCO when they can find the £11 million.To paraphrase the Prime Minister at the United Nations, we need frank and honest answers now. The world needs UNESCO.
I conclude by drawing the attention of the House to a speech made in the other place by the noble Lord Howe, on 22 March this year. He said:
It was, of course, during my time as Foreign Secretary that Her Majesty's Government decided to withdraw support from that organisation … But it was never intended to be a permanent step. The objective was to secure specific and essential changes in the management of that organisation. There was a clear implication that if those changes were achieved, our membership would be renewed.He goes on the say that he wrote to the Prime Minister on 12 October 1993, and pointed out:The merits of the case have already been substantially conceded … Certainly, I think it would be difficult to resist re-entry to U.N.E.S.C.O. for longer than two years from now. The United Nations organisation celebrates in Golden Jubilee in 1995 and U.N.E.S.C.O. would surely be an unstoppable bidder by then?207 He concludes:Therefore I ask with due diffidence: why have we not yet re-joined? I hesitate to conclude that Her Majesty's Government are still unable, 18 months later, to find the £11 million or so necessary. I hesitate to recall that when I was making my first budget I learnt to my astonishment that the estimated size of the PSBR was rounded to the nearest £¼ billion. I am still more reluctant to conclude that Her Majesty's Government are unwilling to take the necessary decision."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 1231.]It is an inescapable conclusion that, under the leadership of its director-general, Federico Mayor, UNESCO has satisfactorily addressed all the problems that led the UK to withdraw. It is doing valuable international work. It is praised by many international organisations and organisations in this country. For example, I have a letter from the Royal Society of Chemistry, pointing out the importance of the work of UNESCO, and its desire that the UK should rejoin, so that it can play a part in the valuable work that needs to be done.Many other organisations in this country would join me in congratulating the Government if they could see fit to get our country back into UNESCO before the 50th anniversary celebrations, so that we could continue to make a valuable contribution to it in the future. UNESCO's constitution states:
Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be reconstructed.It is very regrettable that we have decided for the past decade to stay out of that construction process.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for giving us the opportunity to review this very important subject this evening. As he rightly pointed out, the purpose of UNESCO is one which undoubtedly the Government, and, indeed, all right-minded people would endorse, and he himself read out article 1 of its constitution. It is worth reminding those who are not here this evening—of whom I fear that there are a great number—but who might wish to follow this from Hansard, precisely what article one says.
Its purpose is of contributing
to peace and security by 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 for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations".As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the United Kingdom was a founder member of the organisation, its constitution being adopted in 1945 at the Institution of Civil Engineers in London.In December 1984, the British Government gave one year's notice of their intention to withdraw from UNESCO, and the hon. Gentleman gave a review of some of the reasons that were given for that withdrawal. The most important reason at the time, I think, was the fact that we had serious reservations about the stewardship of the director-general, Mr. M'bow. We certainly did not share his vision of the way in which the organisation should go forward.
208 In particular, we were concerned about the proliferation of programmes without the elimination of those of marginal value; the slow progress being made on decentralisation, which the hon. Gentleman conceded; the inefficient and outdated administrative practices that effectively meant jobs for life for those involved—that was simply not acceptable as a way of running an international organisation; the inflated budgets, which included vastly excessive expenses for those involved in the running of the organisation; the duplication of activities with other United Nations bodies, in particular the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organisation; and special programme issues, particularly the New World Information and Communication Order, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which apparently tried to regulate the world's press in a way that could well be construed as an attempt at international censorship. I doubt that even the hon. Gentleman and other fervent admirers of UNESCO would argue that at that time we should have remained part of it; certainly, it was going badly wrong.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that vast progress has been made since those days. There have been real changes in UNESCO, and the United Kingdom Government have been working behind the scenes to try to secure those changes, so that we can review our position in regard to membership. I am happy to acknowledge publicly that progress has been made.
Recent UNESCO budgets have all generally respected the principle of zero real growth, which is consistent with United Kingdom policy. The establishment of the expert group on finance and administration matters has made the budgetary process more transparent. Progress has been made in reducing the overlap with the activities of other UN bodies. UNESCO's communication activities now focus particularly on promoting freedom of the press.
The work of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is very welcome. The Government always note the work of such Committees, as I am happy to report from my previous incarnation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, given my past participation in the Select Committee, I view Select Committees' conclusions with great concern, and accord them considerable weight.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Is my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) right in saying that the Select Committee is the only body that has examined the question properly? After it had reported three times that a certain course should be adopted, should the Government have heeded its advice?
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorThe hon. Gentleman is, of course, right in saying that the Government should take note of what the Select Committee does, as indeed they do. It is not true, however, that the Select Committee is the only body that has examined the matter closely; the Government keep it under a constant and close review. Notwithstanding what I said about the value of the Select Committee's work, Select Committees, unlike the Government, do not have to find the funds with which to implement their recommendations. I shall say more about that shortly.
Let me return to the reforms that the Government do not consider to have been fully addressed. We do not believe—the hon. Gentleman conceded the point—that there has been adequate decentralisation. In 1991, a comprehensive study of the issue was undertaken by the 209 executive board; it concluded—rightly, in our view—that there was a need for clear objectives, and for field offices to be strengthened. Up until now, that has not happened. Last year, only 25 per cent. of staff were in field offices. We do not consider that adequate.
In 1985, we questioned the number and focus of UNESCO's programmes. There has been little significant improvement in that regard. We believe that more selectivity is needed; otherwise, UNESCO runs the risk of trying to do too much, and as a result programmes lose their impact.
In the same vein, we are concerned about the large proportion of staff costs in the overall budget, and about increasing administrative costs. We understand that, at the current general conference, the Canadians—with support from some other major donors—are urging that the general conferences, executive boards and meetings of the governing bodies of UNESCO's related organisations be made more cost-effective. Proposals include a reduction in the length of the conference and board meetings, streamlining of the agenda and less time allocated to formal debate. We are actively encouraging those proposals.
Of course, the failings that I have outlined are not unique to UNESCO, and our continuing review of UNESCO should be seen in the context of our wider review of United Nations bodies as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is important to consider the wider elements, to ensure that UNESCO is not taken out of context and looked at without due regard for the rest of the United Nations' activities. The review was given a fresh impetus by the agreement at the G7 Halifax summit on a package of proposals for UN reform.
It will have been clear from the Halifax summit communiquè, and more recently from the Prime Minister's speech at the UN50 summit on 23 October, that we firmly believe that the time has come for a thoroughgoing review of UN bodies in the economic and social spheres. In that we are not alone. There is a close identity of views on the issue among the G7 countries and in Russia, and the European Union has been in the vanguard of those who are calling for a fresh look at those structures as we approach the millennium.
The hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke about recent press reports which suggested that the Government intend to seek the abolition of UNESCO, the International Labour Organisation, the FAO and other organisations. Those reports are wholly misleading. What the Prime Minister said at last week's UN50 summit in New York should be quoted in full and accurately. He said:
as we form new bodies for new problems do we close down those no longer needed? Not enough. There are bodies we should scrap".That represents one of several key questions that the UN and its members must address if there is to be genuine reform of the United Nations. Do some bodies need a total overhaul and do some need to be dispensed with altogether'? Those questions cannot be shirked when reviewing the work of the United Nations.Together with our G8 partners, we are working to convince the UN membership at large that the questions raised by the Prime Minister in New York on waste, duplication, pre-emption of conflict, the planning, management and financing of peacekeeping and above all 210 on UN finances themselves have to be addressed seriously and soon. Inertia, not change, is the biggest threat to the future of the United Nations.
The fact that the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations had such an impact underlines the growing realisation that the reform nettle must be grasped. Over the coming months, we shall look to work with all UN member states in an effort to build a broad-based coalition to reshape the economic and social bodies in such a way as to make them more efficient.
The hon. Member conceded the financial implications of any decision to rejoin UNESCO. I appreciate that £11 million is not a vast sum in the overall financial picture. However, it is a major consideration in the light of the budget from which it comes, and we cannot look at it without looking at the consequences of transferring that sum from other useful areas.
To put the matter in perspective, I shall give some examples of how we currently spend £11 million. That amount is more than our total bilateral aid to all the countries in the Pacific. It exceeds our contribution to all the Commonwealth multilateral programmes, and in the diplomatic wing it represents more than 10 per cent. of our overseas commercial effort. It is approximately three times the running costs of all 10 embassies in the former Soviet Union. Therefore, it must be right that we have thought long and hard about United Kingdom membership. We shall continue to do that.
The hon. Member mentioned the possibility of spreading the budget through other routes. It is a long time since the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, and the reality is that we would not be able to fund UNESCO membership from other budgets. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office would have to find the money, and neither the Treasury nor my colleagues in other Departments would be remotely prepared to find £11 million from another source. It would impact heavily on our work.
I conclude by speaking about the United Kingdom's current involvement with UNESCO. Contrary to some misconceptions, we have not severed our links with that organisation. We have maintained a presence through our observer section in our Paris embassy, which monitors developments within the organisation, covering key meetings, such as the twice-yearly executive board sessions and the biennial general conference.
As in the past 10 years, officials from London will attend the current general conference which has just started. Therefore, we are keeping in close touch with UNESCO through that and other means, and we shall continue to do that, notwithstanding the fact that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. DalyellWill the Minister give way?
§ Sir Nicholas BonsorNo. I should like to finish.
I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Ilford, South by saying that at the moment I cannot accede to his request.
§ Mr. DalyellBefore the Minister sits down—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)Order. The Minister has sat down.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.