UNESCO World Heritage Convention 1972 (Hansard, 8 July 1982)

§ Lord Duncan-Sandys
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, accession to the convention would entail an obligation to contribute to the World Heritage Fund. This would currently amount to about £39,000, based on our annual assessed payment to UNESCO, which could involve reducing the provision made for other work in developing countries to which Her Majesty's Government attach higher priority.

§ Lord Duncan-Sandys
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some 60 other countries have acceded to this convention, including most of the countries of Western Europe and the United States of America? Considering the outstanding record of Britain in the field of natural and architectural conservation, is it not strange that we should decline to play our part at international level, since it is likely to cost only £39,000?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on the figures of those who have acceded, and also the remarks that my noble friend made about the part that we have played in our contribution to conserving the natural and cultural heritage of this country, and indeed internationally. Indeed, my noble friend played his part only seven years ago as chairman of the International Organising Committee of the European Architectural Heritage Year, Having said that, the fact is that, although the World Heritage Fund is set up to provide support for projects, no direct benefits are likely to come to Britain even if we ratify.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, agree with the preamble to this UNESCO Convention that the cultural and national heritage of the world are increasingly threatened with destruction? Is there not a certain risk of that happening even in this country? Is this failure to take any part in this attempt at preservation of a culture which is under threat a remarkably un-British contribution, if I may dare use such an adjective, at this time when the amount involved, £39,000, is really a minimal amount?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord refers to the preamble. The noble and learned Lord may have also noticed that the two main aims of the convention are that each state should recognise the duty of looking after its own cultural and natural heritage, and each state should take necessary steps to protect its own cultural and natural heritage. I think we have been leading the way in the world in doing 895 that. We then have to look at the third step, which is what happens if we accede to the convention. We find that some interesting pieces of heritage, such as the Grand Canyon in the United States, are apparently on the list of those places which ought to be preserved, but I think it is doubtful whether there would be any heritage places in the United Kingdom which would figure on the list.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's answer to my noble friend Lord DuncanSandys that this would not benefit the United Kingdom, if I understood him rightly, would he bear in mind that there is great scope for international action in these tasks of preserving the world's heritage and that the international action is not likely to be effective without the full support of our country?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, we have not closed the door on this matter. We have decided simply to defer ratification at present. It is not possible to say when ratification will take place, but the question is being kept under review.

Lord Oram
My Lords, if this country made more resolute steps to an aid programme such as we are committed to in the United Nations, would not that sum of money easily comprehend the small amount of money that would be needed to meet the noble Lord's request in his Question?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the aid programme of this country is directed primarily towards the poorest countries. I very much doubt whether they would benefit from this convention.

§ Lord Duncan-Sandys
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that one of the basic principles of the convention is that we all accept and recognise that the heritage of the world, whether natural or architectural, is the joint heritage of all mankind and that we all have a part to play in trying to preserve it? As for any benefits to us, the Minister said that he did not think we had anything sufficiently interesting to feature on a world list of objects which needed preserving. I have no doubt that Stonehenge would be one of the first on the whole of the list. Does he not really feel that, in view of the serious criticism being expressed internationally of our failure to accede, the Government should give not only consideration but urgent consideration to this matter?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, really one has to look at the facts. The total sum available to the fund is going to be very small indeed. One had to look carefully to see what the future of the fund would be in view of the enormous demands which will undoubtedly be made upon it. One has to look with some self-interest to see whether it would be of use to this country. It is on that point particularly that we have our doubts.

§ Baroness White
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answer is not concerned solely with cash, but that it makes some of us feel rather ashamed?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, if we are talking about 896 swapping part of the aid programme which goes towards the poorest countries to this fund, then I have no shame at all in saying that I believe that it would be wrong to make that swap. If, on the other hand, we are talking about providing new money, then I am afraid the new money is not there to be provided.