UNESCO Conference

HL Deb 25 January 1984 vol 447 cc304-30

7.31 p.m.

Lord Vaizey rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the outcome of the 22nd session Of the UNESCO General Conference.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, so far as I can discover, this is the first time that the subject of UNESCO has been raised on the Floor of either House for a considerable time. As the organisation is at a turning point in its affairs, I think that it is an appropriate occasion to put a number of specific questions to the Government about British participation and policy. They may well welcome the opportunity to take counsel with your Lordships on the matter. May I say how much we welcome back to the Front Bench from her journeys my noble friend Lady Young. She has been to Grenada and the Falkland Islands. Every troubled island in the world seems to have received a visit from my noble friend this Christmas and New Year.

The five specific questions that I want to put to my noble friend—and I have given her notice of them—are as follows. First, are the Government satisfied that, with other like-minded Governments, we have exerted sufficient pressure to contain the budgetary expansion of UNESCO? Secondly, are they satisfied that every effort is being made to restrain the extravagance and inefficiency at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris? I do not speak about the work in the field. Thirdly, are they satisfied that Mr. M'Bow has proved an effective director general of this United Nations agency, and what attitude will they take to his forthcoming campaign for re-election? Fourthly, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that the threat to the free flow of information caused by UNESCO's proposed third world censorship programme has been staved off? Lastly, are the Government satisfied that the serious damage to human rights entailed in UNESCO's support of so-called people's rights has also been limited?

Behind these five specific questions lies a more general anxiety. It is this. Successive Western Governments have not taken UNESCO seriously. It has been allowed to become a major centre of anti-Western agitation and propaganda. When Israel was expelled from UNESCO in the mid-1970s the United States, under the then presidency of President Carter, withdrew its support and Israel was promptly re-admitted. Now the United States has finally announced that it will resign from the organisation.

I speak with 25 years experience of UNESCO. Many of us feel that, on balance, other Western Governments, including our own, should also cut their losses—though I must admit that the Foreign Office has already, announced that we shall not withdraw. I wonder whether that decision is correct and whether it is not a bit precipitate.

The Glasgow Herald, the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Times, the Spectator and the Economist have all argued that the United Kingdom should also withdraw. I know that many other knowledgeable people share that view. I have had a great many letters from people of great distinction and authority asking me to suggest in this House that the Government should seriously consider withdrawal. I shall listen with particular interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, with his many years of experience of United Nations work, has to say, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, who is probably the country's leading expert on overseas aid to the third world.

If I may take us back a little to the origins of UNESCO, it was set up in London in 1946 and then transferred to Paris. It is now a significant item in the French balance of payments, because three-quarters of its budget is spent in France. Its first director general was Sir Julian Huxley, a distinguished man but no great shakes as an administrator. The Soviet Union joined in 1956. Sir Julian was then followed by two short-lived directors general. UNESCO then had a very distinguished French director general, M. Maheu, who has recently died. The director general now is from Senegal. Mr. M'Bow administers a sizeable programme, to which our annual contribution is rather less than £5 million, which is not an insignificant sum. If I may give a comparison, it is almost enough to save Calke Abbey, as it is half the annual grant to the National Heritage Fund.

That bit of UNESCO's expenditure which is not spent in Paris has shifted heavily towards the third world. The push in that direction was given by the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, when he was education Minister. I think that it is increasingly realised that he was the most distinguished education Minister that we have had since the war, and his views will be particularly important and relevant. Mrs. Castle, when she was Minister for Overseas Development and the responsibilities for UNESCO were transferred from education to overseas development, also tried to push effort into work in the field in education. I shall listen with care to what the noble Viscount has to say. Those two important efforts by British Ministers have not been carried through.

UNESCO is governed by biennial conferences, to which we send small delegations. It is also governed by an executive board on which a British subject usually sits. Customarily it has been a retired middle-level civil servant. I think it is fair to say that, with the exceptions to which I have drawn attention—the noble Viscount and Mrs. Castle—there has been little ministerial interest in the organisation over the years. Of the three surviving former British executive board members, I think that the most distinguished also favours withdrawal. It is fair to say that the Labour nominee, Mr. Matheson, who left the executive board in 1974, does not. He thinks that we should definitely stay and that one of the reasons for the weakness in UNESCO is the lack of interest by the United States delegation. That was true in the Carter years but it is not true now. The United States has a distinguished delegate in Paris, as we have had, too.

UNESCO's constitution, governed as it is by this biennial conference and the transient body of the executive board, gives enormous power to the director general. It must be said that he increases that power by political manipulation. The present director general, for whom the United Kingdom has twice voted, both when the Labour Government were in office and during Mrs. Thatcher's first Administration, was described forcefully, accurately and most impressively by Mrs. Rosemary Righter in a brilliant article in the Sunday Times. She described the arbitrary tyranny which is exercised in Paris over the staff. Only 4 per cent. of the staff said that they had confidence in the director general. He has tried to disband the staff organisation and dissuade people from joining it. This tyranny also extends over many delegates. There is deep dissatisfaction indeed.

These are strong words, but I can assure your Lordships that those of us who go regularly to Paris to see the organisation think that the words are just and fair. The director general will be seeking re-election for a future term of six years. It is most important to find an alternative candidate if we are to stay in the organisation. There are very few constitutional checks on his power.

I should like to ask the Government to take steps to initiate an inquiry into the functioning of the organisation at headquarters and the dissatisfaction to which Mrs. Righter draws our attention in her thoroughly well researched article in the Sunday Times. Mrs. Righter, and many other journalists of great distinction, have gone on to say that UNESCO is overwhelmingly inefficient and extravagant. I believe that that assertion would be backed up by almost everybody who has served in a British delegation to UNESCO. The question which is really before the Government is whether or not the rot has gone so far that the organisation is no longer remediable. On balance, I would think that that is so; I think that it has gone so far.

The one section of the organisation for which I had great respect was the International Institute for Educational Planning, which did very valuable work; but the independence of the governing board of that body has been destroyed and the independence of its staff put under the control of the secretariat, which means that the last section that was outstanding has diminished.

I must say that if inefficiency and extravagance were the sole charge, it might be said that UNESCO was a fairly cheap way for the British to meet and influence third world delegations. Personally, I think that that is a weak argument. There are plenty of other places for our diplomats and experts to meet people from the third world—notably, of course, from the Commonwealth, where we have an admirable record in educational aid and scientific collaboration. UNESCO's small programmes in marine biology and archaeological preservation could certainly be far more cheaply performed by properly constituted scientific bodies.

It is not just extravagance; it is not just inefficiency. There are two areas where the torrent of anti-Western propaganda represents a real danger to Western values, which are upheld in all parts of this House. The first concerns human rights, which is the one issue about which I feel absolutely passionately. UNESCO has got into the human rights act on the somewhat spurious ground of education for human rights and research into the question. The Swiss national who is responsible for this part of UNESCO's programme has resigned on principle and has been replaced by a Trinidadian, Mrs. O'Callaghan, a far Left Marxist, who has pursued the director general's concept (borrowed from the Soviet Union) of people's rights.

People's rights are the direct opposite of human rights. Human rights are, of course, dismissed as a bourgeois fantasy, and people's rights are based on the concept of tribal and racial purity. They are, for example, the basis of virulent anti-Semitism and bitter hostility to the state of Israel. Those people who have not listened to the debates at UNESCO ought to go and listen to them, because they are quite horrifying.

The usual anti-apartheid resolutions are also passed, but there is never any serious attempt to understand or to interpret the roots of apartheid. The propaganda is so one-sided. There is never any reference to the Ayatollah and the position of people in Iran, for example, let alone any references to other parts of the third world; nor, of course, to the Soviet empire.

The development of the concept of people's rights is a most sinister and deplorable aspect of United Nations activities. Those of us who are deeply concerned with human rights now regard UNESCO not as a neutral party but as a dangerous enemy of the rights of the individual. I may say that the rights of individuals, whatever the colour of their skins, are equally important, and they must not be dismissed merely as a package of Western values which the imperialists are trying to impose on the ex-colonial people. But that is the way they are dismissed at the moment by the Soviet bloc and its supporters.

The other aspect of UNESCO's programme which is deeply sinister is the communications programme. The UNESCO proposals have been doubling up for some years. They come, of course, from the Soviet Union, via Cuba and the so-called group of non-aligned states, and they start from the premise that all world information is biased in a pro-capitalist direction because Reuters, the Press Association, Agence France-Presse, and so on, are part of the capitalist superstructure.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, with all his great authority, is to speak on this aspect of UNESCO's programme, but I would say that this whole programme has been the immediate cause of the United States decision to withdraw. What is being proposed is the setting up of a series of third world agencies, sponsored by Governments, and the licensing of journalists, so that the third world receives more favourable coverage, Western journalists are curbed, and in relation to the press and the media Governments assume the role which they have in the Soviet empire of rewriting and inventing the news.

There was some movement at the conference which ended in November because people were getting wind of the fact that the United States was going to withdraw and so reduce the UNESCO budget by 25 per cent. I think that the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, in a very important pamphlet, that, UNESCO may be approaching a tragic situation in which free countries can compromise no further", is something to which we must pay very great attention. Every responsible person in the press in the West is terrified of this activity which is taking place in Paris.

The evening is drawing on, and I shall bring my remarks to a close. I want very much to hear what other noble Lord have to say. The Government may take the view that our subscription and the costs of our delegation, at about £5 million a year, are negligible. For myself, I do not think that that is an appropriate attitude to take to any public expenditure, large or small, and I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will not take that line. It is true that other Western states, excepting the United States, will not leave UNESCO. Obviously, France will not leave. If it receives 300 million dollars each year, that is a very concrete reason for it to stay in UNESCO. I think probably the rest of the Common Market, for one reason or another, will also stay in.

However, I believe that there is a possibility that New Zealand will withdraw; and, if the Conservatives win the election in Canada, I should certainly be surprised if Canada stays in. This is an occasion, I think, when the United States has acted on behalf of the free nations, following intolerable acts and words by the agency and the group that dominates it. I believe that, in this particular instance, we should pay great attention to what the United States has decided to do.

Above all, we are reaping where we have sown. This is not in any sense an attack on the present Minister, nor on the delegations which we have sent out there. They have been very small, but extremely impressive. However, we have treated the election and re-election of people such as Mr. M'Bow casually. We have allowed the situation in Paris to deteriorate until the staff has become frightened and is now of low calibre. We have not seized the political opportunities of replying to the constent torrent of Soviet propaganda by a sober recital of what they are really up to. I hope very much that my noble friend Lady Young will feel able to reply strongly on our behalf.

7.50 p.m.

Lord Oram

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, tabled his Unstarred Question before the United States announced its intention to withdraw from UNESCO, but that decision and the controversy that has arisen as a result of it, I suggest, makes the noble Lord's Question this evening all the more significant and timely, and I congratulate him at least on that aspect of his inquiries. It is important in the light of the American decision that we should learn what the attitude of our own Government is, and therefore we look forward with more than usual interest to the reply at the end of the debate from the noble Baroness.

Of course, during the recess we had a brief preview both of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, on this matter and of the Government's attitude, because Lord Vaizey wrote to The Times on the 2nd January casting doubt on whether the United Kingdom should continue its membership of UNESCO. I think this evening he has expressed himself on that point even more strongly than he did in his letter. As he has said, we also had at that time a statement from the Foreign Office indicating that the Government had no intention of following the United States in this matter.

I certainly welcome the Government's view—if it still is the Government's view—that it is better to seek improvements (and improvements there undoubtedly need to be) within an organisation than to walk away from it. I hope the Minister when she replies this evening will firmly reiterate that that is still the Government's attitude. In my view, it is highly regrettable that the United States has proclaimed its intention of abandoning UNESCO in a year's time, and, in my view, Britain must not follow suit. If we are dissatisfied with some aspects of the performance of UNESCO—and I share some of the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has put forward—we must use our membership to remedy those defects rather than give up membership.

It was my privilege some 15 or more years ago to lead the British UNESCO delegation to Paris. I do not begin to claim that that qualifies me to speak with any special authority on the present situation, but it does enable me to recall certain general impressions, particularly in relation to the debate about which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, spoke. I remember that I was dissatisfied, particularly in the debates in the General Session, not only about the views expressed by some delegates but that it was simply a platform for making set speeches for consumption at home. That is a weakness which one recognises in many international organisations, and I am not at all sure that we can avoid it. After all, in the history of the human race the very few decades that we have had in these international organisations should mean that we do not expect too much too soon; but certainly I think there is room for improvement in these matters, and for economies. I recognise that the way things are conducted at headquarters could be improved. I would stress that that kind of problem and that kind of expense are not easy to avoid. Certainly, simply throwing in the sponge and walking away does not seem to me to be a helpful attitude.

What are the major criticisms of UNESCO which the noble Lord has put forward this evening, and which I think have been put forward by the United States in its explanation of why it proposes to withdraw? First, the criticism is that the organisation is spendthrift and financially irresponsible. I recall that even 15 years ago the budget was hotly disputed. I ask: what is the yardstick by which the size of the budget of such an organisation as UNESCO should be assessed? UNESCO's mandate covers, after all, all the activities of the human mind and spirit, and its geographical coverage is worldwide, including the vast population and cultural heritage of the Republic of China. Any sum of money can be said to be totally inadequate for such a task.

In cultural matters, where tastes and judgment are of the essence, it is easy for one person to condemn something as wasteful which another person regards as vital; so we are in a very difficult area when we try to measure value for money in these matters. It should be recalled, as I am sure the Minister opposite will recall, because it was made clear in the Foreign Office statement earlier, that the British delegation has been diligent in these matters and has helped to reduce UNESCO's budget, and the much criticised director general himself proposed a reduction in the growth over the next two years. The executive board recommended a growth of something like 6 per cent., and he recommended 4 per cent. I do not think that can be taken as an irresponsible attitude to UNESCO's finance.

Secondly—and again the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, made this point—UNESCO has been accused of meddling in politics beyond the confines of its mandate. I think we need to look carefully at this question. What are the issues that are involved here? The noble Lord drew attention to some of them. He particularly instanced the question of the attitudes to Israel, and I, as a committed friend of the state of Israel, echo some of his sentiments. What, after all, UNESCO is basically concerned with in its resolutions on this subject is the education of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; and other matters, I agree. I see the noble Lord shakes his head, but that is one of the things with which they are concerned.

UNESCO also concerns itself with the maintenance of peace and, as the noble Lord has said, with the question of human rights. Of course, all these questions are political issues; that cannot be in doubt. The question is: does UNESCO exceed its mandate when it deals with subjects such as these? I suggest we need look no further than the preamble to its constitution, and I will quote from it: Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed, and peace must be founded on the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind. What are termed political issues, I suggest, fall within the purpose of that preamble.

I suggest that such subjects cannot but comprehend conflicts of ideology. Indeed, where else in the world is there some hope of reconciling these ideologies in a rational spirit other than in UNESCO? It may be open to all sorts of criticism, but I suggest that, on a worldwide scale, it is the organisation that we have for these purposes and we should use it to the best of our ability.

Another UNESCO proposal which has been criticised—and again the noble Lord took up this point—is the proposal for a new world information and communications order. It is perfectly understandable to me that the Western delegations have been very defensive on this point. I am always very wary of such sweeping worldwide concepts as "new world orders", et cetera. I endorse what I understand to be the Government's position on this matter and I should like to quote from the journal of the Overseas Development Administration which is entitled, Overseas Development. It says: She"— that is, Her Majesty's Government— would find it unacceptable for UNESCO to adopt objectives which could be interpreted as eroding the organisation's cardinal commitment to freedom of expression, or as enhancing government or international control of the media". I also welcome another comment that I read in that same journal: Any NWICO [new world information and communications order] would be of an evolving nature"— there is nothing wide-sweeping in this approach. It goes on to say that it: should move towards practical measures for specific problems—not towards imposing international norms and constraints". I personally have seen the training courses which the ODA supports and I believe them to be entirely on the right lines. The only point I would make in that connection is that I wish that they were on a much larger scale which would begin to meet the problem of the media so far as the developing countries are concerned.

We ought at least to note the motivation for the UNESCO proposal. Without accepting it one should look at what I believe to be the motivation, and one should look at it for a moment through the eyes of the Governments of developing countries who are, after all, the poor relations in every sense in terms of information techniques and machinery. Perhaps I may quote a domestic example. We in the Labour Party on this side of your Lordships' House know only too well what it is like to be the poor relations as regards newspapers and broadcasting, because we are faced daily by a a huge barrage of anti-Labour press and we have no press of our own. Money and resources talk in these matters, both at home and abroad. I believe that that is the position in which the developing countries feel themselves to be and it is that imbalance which they are anxious to overcome. I agree that it may be that they are going about it in the wrong way, but at least one can understand why they are concerned about this matter.

So much for the criticisms of UNESCO. However, I suggest that those criticisms are in danger of concentrating on the lesser parts of UNESCO's activities and underrating UNESCO's overall achievements. For instance, UNESCO's impact on educational development in the third world, particularly in the field of literacy, has been significant. The noble Lord shakes his head. I am advised otherwise. The noble Lord quoted from an issue of The Times and I am glad to quote from, I think, the very issue which contained his letter. It is therefore a particularly interesting edition, and the following quotation is a very good assessment. It says: About thirty seven per cent. of its budget goes towards educational programmes, thirty per cent. to science and eleven per cent. to culture. The more objectionable activities take a very small part of the budget".

Lord Vaizey

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. However, the central point is not whether the dollar is labelled "education", but where the dollar is spent. Of course the dollars are not spent in Botswana and places like that; they are spent in Paris, producing enormous documents, and I have a large number here from which I could read. It is totally incomprehensible. That is the criticism. It is as though the entire education budget or the entire National Health Service budget were spent in the headquarters of the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education. That is the point I am making.

Lord Oram

My Lords, it is a point that I accept. It is a top-heavy organisation. However, in the opening sentences of the noble Lord's speech he did hint that he certainly approved of the activities of UNESCO in the field, and it is that which is dealt with by The Times. The noble Lord not only interrupted me but he more seriously interrupted a quotation from The Times. Perhaps I may continue. It says: If the United States wants to make a persuasive case for leaving it must explain why it thinks that the main core of practical programmes is not worth supporting. Would someone else take over UNESCO's role in teaching Cambodian refugees to read? Would someone else send scientists to hold back the encroaching deserts of northern Kenya? Would someone else have rescued the temple of Abu Simbel? Would someone else take over UNESCO's attempts to restore the Buddhist temples of Java and conserve the Valley of Katmandu? That is a very cryptic and effective summary of some of the work in the field for which UNESCO can take credit.

If the criticisms that the United States puts forward are to be taken at face value, then I believe that those criticisms should be met within UNESCO. But it is my belief that there is a stronger motive underlying the complaints—namely, that the United States feels frustrated at not being able to control the organisation. UNESCO, after all, is not the only example. We have had the recent example of the reduction of the United States' contribution to the International Development Association, and there have been other examples. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to read another quotation from the same article in The Times. It says: Great powers tend to lose dignity when they appear too thin-skinned or too upset when a joint enterprise does not go entirely their way". I would like to conclude by asking the Minister what the British Government are proposing to do following the announcement from the United States in respect of UNESCO. I saw it reported that France, West Germany and the Netherlands all tried to dissuade the United States from withdrawing. But I did not see any mention of activity by the United Kingdom in that respect and I would like to ask the Minister whether the United Kingdom did join with our European colleagues in making those representations. It is, after all, a substantial and urgent matter, because the United States' contribution is one quarter of the total UNESCO budget. In practice I suppose this means that out of every four staff members, one must have been given notice by now. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, may say that there is plenty of scope for that kind of activity. But I suggest that it is rather drastic and rapid surgery that is being applied, however corpulent the body that is being dealt with.

On the other hand, it is only notice of withdrawal that the United States has given. As I understand it, the actual withdrawal takes effect at the end of the year, so something like 12 months remain. I understand that steps are being taken to persuade the United States to change its mind, as, indeed, it has in the past in connection with other international organisations changed its mind after representations. If the Minister confirms, as I fully hope she will, that we intend to stay in UNESCO, I hope that we will go a bit further and try to persuade the United States to stay in as well. As I say, this kind of representation has had good effect in the past and I hope that the British Government will again put forward the reasons for their own continuing membership as reasons for the United States also staving in membership.

8.11 p.m.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, so kindly suggested, I fear that I am no expert on UNESCO; in fact, I know practically nothing about it. I would just say at the start that, if what is reported in the article on the director general, Mr. M'Bow, which appeared in the Sunday Times on 8th January, is true, this organisation, as at present organised, is something of a scandal. I repeat, I just do not know enough; I simply do not know whether or not such a conclusion is justified. It may well be that some of the projects which it undertakes are worthy of support; as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, suggested: quite likely they are.

However, at the risk of boring your Lordships, I shall, by way of trying to put into perspective what our attitude towards this organisation might now be, just venture a few reflections on the general philosophy which I believe lay behind the creation of this organisation after the war and on how far this would still seem to apply.

As it seems to me, whether one thinks that UNESCO serves a useful purpose largely depends on whether one believes that, what one might call "Western" values, or at least some of them, are fully applicable to non-Western and, indeed, older civilisations, such as those of Asia—to say nothing of those states which only in the last century have emerged from the millennia of tribalism. Even this belief surely depends on whether the Western world itself is still firm in its faith in, for instance, the universal applicability of human rights; in what is known as "pluralistic" democracy; in industrialisation; in the essentially beneficent effect of progress; and in the ultimate ability of science (to say nothing of some divine purpose) to solve the problems and to avert the appalling dangers that continue to confront the human race.

I must say that one has to be rather optimistic to hold that these values now generally apply, except in the countries where they originated—that is to say, Europe and North America—and in a few other places where they have, so to speak, been transplanted. Can we really—always in the presumed absence of nuclear war—envisage, for instance, a fully industrialised and democratic China, or even India, complete with modern cities of some 30 million to 40 million people, not surrounded by appalling shanty towns but constructed rather on the model of Dallas or Los Angeles, the peaceful and humane inhabitants of which, all duly exercising their right to vote for the party of their choice and linked together by motorways extending over the entire extent of the Yangtze or the Ganges valleys, with agriculture in the intervening space, when not covered by concrete, being operated technologically by some 5 per cent. of the enormous population?

Even if we could, would such developments be possible without some impossible drain on natural resources? Nor would they seem to be in accordance with the ancient beliefs and practices of the people inhabiting these great sub-continents. No, the plain, if distressing, fact is that Western values—always supposing that they are maintained in their homelands (and even there they are now challenged)—are not of worldwide application.

Let us simply look about us. Out of some 160 existing independent countries, not more than 30 (if one excludes a few dots on the map) can be said to be genuine industrialised democracies in the Western sense, with a literate population of no more than 36 per cent., which would seem to exclude a democratic, though only a very partially industrialised, India. In all, they merely account for some 700 million people, or only about 18 per cent. of the entire population of the world. The remainder, other than India, are either totalitarian, containing about 1,400 million people, or dictatorships of one kind or another, mostly military, which account for another billion or so.

In spite of the Argentine—which I think has been rather cancelled out by Nigeria—there are few signs that this situation will change. Certainly it will not unless we revive world trade and improve the conditions of the so-called third world. If it did change, I am afraid that it would probably be in the direction of more dictatorships. It need scarcely be added that only in pluralistic democracies can human rights be fully exercised; in totalitarian countries for all practical purposes they are non-existent.

What, then, are the prospects of success of an international organisation which I believe is supposed to arrive at world agreement on means to promote education, science and culture (whatever culture may be deemed to be)? On the face of it, its role should be modest, concentrating on simple measures that might conceivably be generally acceptable, such as the exchange of scholars, the formation of libraries, the best means of promoting literacy, ways of teaching subsistance farming with new techniques, and so on. For as long as the background of the various nations differs so immeasurably, it can hardly with success do anything else.

However, even in such spheres, things being as they are, politics will no doubt raise its ugly head. For instance, as I think has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, attempts to compel the more advanced nations—that is, advanced in the application of Western values—to accept restrictions on the dissemination of ideas and news by any of the media will simply give rise to battles which nobody will win, as will suggestions that the richer nations are simply clinging to power at the expense of the poor.

That is not to say that the richer, or Westernised, nations have no responsibility for doing what they can to raise the standard of living of the many states that are now existing—often through no fault of their own—below the poverty line, even if that might result in some fall in their own standard of living. But such efforts should surely be made either directly or within the framework of new, agreed economic policies, mostly concerted with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund among other organisations. To endeavour through yet another international agency to lessen disparities and to create harmony by urging, as I understand it, the adoption by a great majority of Governments of Western values, which on the whole mean little or nothing to them, does not seem to make much sense, more especially when attempts to do anything of the kind are usually denounced as "cultural imperialism."

I do not, of course, mean to say that the states concerned may not want to be Westernised. On the contrary, most of them are probably spellbound by what they see on TV, such as soap operas, and would like nothing better than to achieve the sort of standard of living that they imagine is typical of Europe and the United States. Originally they thought that they could attain this end by immediately investing in heavy industry, but that has not proved to be very satisfactory. In any case, it is not at all certain that they would really be happy in a completely Westernised society. The magic of industrialisation is probably therefore wearing off. Unfortunately, this does not mean that the dreadful drift to the cities will necessarily stop.

Though, as I say, my personal experience of UNESCO is virtually nil, and though I am quite prepared to change my mind after hearing the views of really well-informed noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, in this debate, for which we are all so greatly indebted to Lord Vaizey, I must say that my present inclination is to think that failing reform—I say, failing reform—it would not matter very much if UNESCO did fold up.

I see, of course, the disadvantages of withdrawal. Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to wind up will dwell on them. The Soviet Government would no doubt try to dominate the institution, and might even, I suppose, agree to make up much of the 25 per cent. reduction, or whatever it might be, in its income, all the time professing support for "Western" values, which in practice it repudiates. It might also perhaps have some success in using UNESCO for purposes for anti-Western propaganda, more especially if the world slump—to say nothing of the present deplorable American financial policy—persists. But whether we ourselves can successfully combat such tendencies from within if the Americans do withdraw is perhaps open to some doubt. I should like to be reassured on that. In any case, I look forward eagerly to hearing the views of the noble Baroness when she winds up.

What is perhaps more important is what we in the West think that we stand for and what we now ought to do. I suggest that if we ourselves really want to promote education, science and culture we ought to aim at least at less state control, less centralisation of individual energies, less concentration of scientific effort on nuclear arms, star wars, and the eventual colonisation of planets, to say nothing of genetic engineering, and more on how best to make use of the leisure enforced by our latest inventions for the production of goods and indeed of food. In this way we might at the same time set an example to the underdeveloped nations and do much to safeguard our ancient liberties against "Orwellian" tendencies during 1984 and beyond.

If your Lordships will permit me to continue for another minute or two, I will end with a personal experience. At the famous conference in 1945 in San Francisco the Soviet legal advisor was a charming, highly competent and even friendly lawyer of a rather old-fashioned type, called Professor Golunsky. Luckily I can tell this story because he is long since dead. The professor, who would occasionally dine with us without a "minder", was, in spite of his friendly charm, the most pessimistic man that I have ever met.

According to him the human race could, since the Industrial Revolution, be compared to a proliferation of bacilli which normally exist in a state of symbiosis with their surroundings but which occasionally, as it were, collectively explode, eventually eliminating themselves altogether owing to a failure of the means of subsistence and poisoned by their own excreta. Even so, said the professor, the human race, which until comparatively lately had lived in a state of symbiosis with nature—in other words, the rest of God's creation—was at present engaged in rapidly destroying it. Soon all the forests would go, the oceans and the air would be polluted, and if nothing but uninhabitable deserts were to be left, the "proliferation" of the human race must somehow or other be impeded.

You do not have to be as pessimistic as the professor—I am sure none of you is—but all the same it does look as if there was at least something in his thesis. I know that Malthus has (for the time being at any rate) been proved to be wrong by "science", but unless we look out I think the old boy may be proved right in the end. True, industrialisation results—it seems after a pretty long period—in stabilisation at a low birth rate, but there also results a huge increase in the exploitation of what are probably irreplaceable natural resources.

Should this general process be extended to the 75 per cent. of humanity which is not yet fully industrialised, then surely we may expect the worst. If we were to have a really high-powered and preferably nonpolitical institution that dispassionately considered these great issues, and proposed solutions, such as ways and means of enforcing a fall in the birth rate, that might indeed be a good thing. But I must say I cannot believe that UNESCO as at present organised—I repeat, as at present organised—is likely to fill any such role.

We must, after all, take things as they are and face realities, however unpleasant. A vague belief in "progress" is not likely by itself to get us out of the present mess, and it requires a great effort of imagination to believe, as some scientists believe, that humanity will eventually be saved by the peaceful application of nuclear fission or fusion.

So—and this is my final word—I repeat, what seems in practice to be needed, apart from getting trade with the third world going, is some worldwide scheme for the management of good subsistence farming and local industries, coupled perhaps with some new and hitherto unthought of means of lowering the birth rate and thus checking the ghastly development of the shanty towns. If UNESCO by any chance can help towards that end, then surely it is a good thing and must be preserved, but I rather doubt it. Whatever defects there may be in the latest Chinese policies for encouraging small development and restricting the population, they seem to have had some success in both these directions. When I was in China a little while ago I urged all my Chinese friends not to go in for industrialisation on the lines of Japan. Who knows? Perhaps it will eventually be a case of ex oriente lux! Let us hope so.

8.27 p.m.

Viscount Eccles

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vaizey has raised a very sad question. Anyone who cares for education and culture must regret that UNESCO has been so great a failure. The rot set in long ago, and it has really become intolerable. The United States, having lost patience, has given notice to withdraw, and I am going to urge upon the Government that we do the same and withdraw and then rejoin when the organisation has accepted a root and branch reform. So what are the prospects of such a reform?

We paid dearly for a mistake made at UNESCO's birth, and made I think by Sir Julian Huxley. Science was included as one of the three then equal objectives. It should not have been. Science had many strong supporters both public and private, whereas education and culture, which are allied subjects, had no other international umbrella. The inclusion of science, as I saw very well for myself on the many occasions when I led our delegation, fragmented and weakened the whole organisation. Therefore, let us make it a condition of rejoining UNESCO that science should be dropped; and I shall say something more about that presently.

I am sure your Lordships know how UNESCO recruits its staff. A quota is allotted to every one of the 160 member states. The secretary general fills, or sometimes leaves partly unfilled, these quotas with an eye, especially for the senior jobs, on those who share his views. He did not fill the United States' quota of 3 per cent. out of a staff of over 2,700, and that is to be compared with their subscription of 25 per cent. The result is that many of the staff never have and never will have adequate qualifications for their jobs. Most of them mill round the headquarters in Paris. Again, as your Lordships know, French food and wine, French nightclubs and Parisian pleasures can add up to a rich reward for a political friend or a member of one's family, especially if he or she comes from one of the smaller member states.

So what happens? The new arrivals, knowing little about science, education or culture, look round for similarly misplaced colleagues with whom they can talk about perks and politics. Recruitment after that fashion has ruined the budget. I believe my noble friend Lord Vaizey told us that 75 per cent. of every dollar in UNESCO's income—that is the real answer to Lord Oram's list—is spent in Paris. It was 70 per cent. in my day, so it is now even worse. The big subscribers should have moved in long ago to stop this folly. Think what we could do at the British Council if we had the millions which we subscribe to UNESCO. Every possible dollar of UNESCO's income should have been spent outside Paris. One has only to remember the millions of children scattered throughout the world without adequate schools, books or teachers. Now I shall be told that UNESCO has undertaken some worthwhile projects in the educational field. Yes, that is true, but the bias has been towards jobs for the intellectual élite and not towards the humble needs of the uneducated.

In any case, what stares one in the face is the scandalously small proportion of the whole budget which has not been spent on overheads in Paris. If we cite those projects which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, cited, let him add the cost of those projects and compare it to the total budget. He will then see how the money has been wasted.

In the cultural field it is the same story. I give one example. Why has UNESCO neglected crafts? Many of the less developed countries have no tradition of fine arts as we define them in Europe. Their national heritage, their cultural identity, lives or dies by the exercise of such crafts as pottery, wood-carving, weaving and printed fabrics. I myself warned Mr. M'Bow that the tourist trade and airport shops were destroying the traditional skills of Africa—from which, incidentally, he comes—of the Pacific and of a large part of Latin America. UNESCO did almost nothing for the World Crafts Council while it went on subsidising arts in Paris.

The first mistake is the method of recruitment and the second is the poor priorities. Those are faults which the large subscribers, if they stand together, should be able to put right. What about the third defect? What about the infiltration of Marxist politics throughout the whole range of the organisation? Mr. Gregory Newell, in his report to the United States Government, finds that the attack has been steadily and increasingly viciously prosecuted against both the economic and political systems of the West.

On the first count I have often heard the Left Wing members of UNESCO insisting that their countries are poor because the industrialised countries are rich and that the industrialised countries are rich only because they have exploited the third world. That is manifestly untrue. Where would the less developed countries be without Western capital, medicine and technology? We can win that argument if we send the right people to represent us at UNESCO and other Western countries do the same.

However, the infiltration of political ideas is another matter. Let us take, for example, the belief that the truth will make individual men and women free. The Communists do not share that view. In their countries and in some military dictatorships the interests of the power of the state are put in front of human rights. In UNESCO the Marxists have been attacking subjects such as freedom of speech quite openly.

I remember the beginning of this. The Soviet bloc began this battle about 10 years ago when the Russian delegation to a cultural conference at Helsinki was led by a brilliant, aggressive, splendidly attractive woman, Ekaterina Furtseva. I was her opposite number and we argued in public and in private about the free circulation of information and the right of artists to criticise their Governments. Furtseva foresaw the coming of satellite broadcasting which the Soviet might be unable to jam. "This," she said "would be an interference with the internal affairs. It must be stopped. No properly constituted Government had a duty to give its enemies a sporting chance to destroy its basic philosophy." I reminded Furtseva that for many years the Soviets had been trying to undermine our philosophy inside our borders. "Yes," she said, "We have, but our system is so obviously right that it is above criticism and yours is so rotten that it deserves to be buried."

Here we have a fundamental difference of view. We cannot, by changing the rules of UNESCO, keep it out of the debates. Education and culture cannot be fenced off from such political questions as free speech and censorship. What is taught in schools and how much freedom artists have to say what they like reflect and mould the society in which we live. Therefore the argument must go on, but we should see that it is fairly conducted. It is not fairly conducted in UNESCO.

Britain, like the United States, is financing an organisation which is using our taxpayers' money to attack our way of life. Our beliefs and our proposals are deliberately flouted by organised political opponents. Clearly, on that sort of issue agreement will be very difficult to reach unless we are seen to be in the closest alliance with the Americans and others who think like us.

UNESCO may have been the easiest of the United Nations agencies to sabotage, but let no one think that if we accept defeat there the rot will not spread to other parts of the United Nations. I beg Her Majesty's Government not to fudge the truth about UNESCO. Together with the Americans, let us think about dropping science from the organisation's objectives, so that the resources can be concentrated on education and culture. Out of the total of those resources, let us undertake that the major part—let us say 75 per cent. not including the overheads—shall be spent on projects in the less developed countries. If we want a reform of UNESCO, we must propose a new system which is seen to be of real interest to the majority of the countries in the third world; and that is easy to do if we can persuade UNESCO to chop its expenses in Paris and spend most of its money where it is really needed.

In conclusion, my Lords, I would say that, by refusing to withdraw and staying inside, it is going to be much more difficult to negotiate a reform. With the Americans outside, we are going to have very little influence inside. The right policy for us, therefore, is to withdraw, to bargain hard with the help of all the friends that we can muster and then to rejoin on conditions which guarantee the less-developed countries a much better deal than they are getting now out of the squandered resources in Paris. That is really not very difficult to do. So I ask this question: Is it too much for our Government to take a leading part in cleaning up this sorry business? I await with great anxiety what the noble Baroness is going to say.

8.41 p.m.

Lord McGregor of Durris

My Lords, like other speakers, I am exceedingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for giving us the opportunity to debate this significant, very important and, I think, very difficult question. I speak with great hesitation because my knowledge of UNESCO is slight and recent, as compared with that of other speakers. My involvement has arisen in respect of Lord Vaizey's fourth and fifth questions about the threats to the free flow of information and human rights.

Some six years ago an informal group was brought together by the International Press Institute under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Pickering, who, among his other dignities, is the chairman of the Commonwealth Press Union. The function of the group was to combat what were then felt to be developments in UNESCO dangerous to a free press. This group has sustained a steady quarrel with UNESCO on many of the discontents stated so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. These discontents, as far as freedom of expression and the independence of the media were concerned, stemmed (as the noble Viscount has just said), in the early to mid-1970s, in part from fears voiced by the nonaligned movement supported by the Soviet bloc that their dependence upon the industrialised West for news, information and entertainment constituted a subjection to cultural imperialism—a new form of colonialism, in the widely-used phrase.

This dependence was regarded as the more repugnant because those services were mostly delivered by multinational corporations; that is, by organisations which came high in the third world's demonology and were set against the peevish nationalism which forms an important part of such beliefs. The result was a declaration from a UNESCO conference in Nairobi in 1976 which placed upon the media the duty to mobilise international opinion behind concurrent demands for a new world information and communication order and for a new international economic order. The non-aligned movement has always spoken of these two new orders as being verbal Siamese twins.

The declaration also gave approval as a matter of principle to the use of media by Government and declared: States are responsible for the activities in the international sphere of all mass media under their jurisdiction". This so-called principle of state responsibility has been widely promulgated, and has exacerbated the conflict over the media within UNESCO and beyond. What is acceptable to Governments which control media may be abhorrent to those with independent media; and one should remember that, of the member states of UNESCO, some 130 use their media, as a matter of course, as an instrument of government for promoting economic development, national unity and cultural identity. On most ratings, there are within UNESCO only about 30 member states with media independent of government and performing the function which democrats allot to the press of criticising all concentrations of power, including government. Nevertheless, the principle of state responsibility became central to discussions in 1982 at the United Nations General Assembly, when possible controls over direct broadcasting by satellite were being considered, and they came under discussion for the reasons which the noble Viscount has given us.

In 1977 the director general of UNESCO set up an international commission for the study of communication problems under the chairmanship of Mr. Sean MacBride, Nobel and Lenin prizewinner and, I believe, sometime chief of staff of the IRA. The report of this body alerted Western Governments, which had been very slow to respond effectively to these developments. Most newspapermen and broadcasters were uninterested and treated attempts to alert them as alarmist over-reaction. They thought that there was very little to worry about, but that UNESCO possessed neither real power nor any means to enforce the declarations in which it indulged.

In the early days of the campaign for a new world information and communication order they underestimated the legitimacy which UNESCO approval could confer on proposals to impose restrictions on the international media. They also failed to weigh the moral authority upon which Governments could thereby draw when abolishing freedom of expression or resisting demands for it.

Belatedly, the free world media have now begun to stand their ground collectively in order to oppose such developments, which will take place whether we remain in UNESCO or depart from it. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, rightly pointed out, the attack on the free flow of information through the demands within UNESCO for a new world information and communication order has been extended by demands for people's rights to be informed and people's rights to communicate, upon which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, laid considerable stress.

These newly-asserted rights in the field of communication and information add nothing to existing declarations. For example, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948 states that— everyone has the right to freedom of information and of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". How then, one may ask, does a people's right to communicate or a people's right to be informed differ from a right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers, other than in the fact that the right in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is an individual right and the new rights that are being asserted are collective rights?

I suspect that the emphasis which is now being placed in UNESCO upon collective rights will lead to a move for a codification of all the old and new rights to communicate and the code thus derived will then become a new legal order, buttressing the new world information and communication order; and UNESCO will then set itself up as the enforcement agency for a body of collective as well as of individual rights. And when that happens, very little further will be heard about individual rights.

The British role in maintaining the importance of an independent press and the integrity of a system of human rights has been most effectively and forcefully performed at the general conferences of UNESCO in recent years; and I wish to pay a tribute, which I know will be echoed by many practitioners in the media, to the vigour and skill with which Ministers and officials have made the British case. One is bound to say that Ministers have not always been assisted by the sometimes frequent and sudden changes in policy by the United States in this field. At the General Conference in Paris last year, which I attended, it was clear that the new world information and communication order juggernaut, which was rolling fast from the previous grotesque conference in Mexico City, had been halted at least for the time being and it now seems that our position, at least on the media, has been considerably improved.

Against that background, I find the question, "Ought we to leave?" so finely balanced as to be very hard to reach a decision on and there is a strong temptation to take refuge in delaying tactics. It is right that UNESCO should be put on serious notice that if it continues along its present lines we shall depart. I have no doubt about that; and such statements seem to me to be a proper sanction by means of which we might hope to secure a radical reform within UNESCO. Whether, as the noble Viscount suggested, we should leave first and hope to secure the improvements afterwards, or whether we should stay in and seek the radical changes before we depart, is a matter of policy on which I could not attempt to make a judgment.

However, certain considerations point to caution, at any rate in the short run. In the first place, an early withdrawal would save us nothing. We have paid our subscription for this year and we can resign at any time up to the end of the year, so there will be no financial saving from leaving now. Might we not therefore use the next six or nine months to assess the advantages and disadvantages and the likely consequences of leaving or of staying in and also perhaps to stimulate a public debate?

Many questions need to be answered. What do like-minded countries think? What of the Commonwealth? What of our partners in the Community, with whom we have been seeking, as I understand it, to establish effective Community political action? To be the only member of the Community to leave would not contribute to that endeavour, and it seems clear that no other member of the Community is going to leave. What of the interests at home of those who will be most affected?

Finally, from the point of view of the Western media, may we not gain more from staying in and arguing and battling on? We shall then at least know what are the trends of opinion and what is the nature of the criticisms we have to meet—and we shall have to meet them whether we are in UNESCO or out of it. I am more optimistic about the magic of industrialism, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, called it, than he is. But to discuss that would be to embark on another debate in order to answer yet one more unanswerable question. I should like to conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for putting his Unstarred Question down and giving us this opportunity to discuss it.

8.59 p.m.

Lord Bauer

My Lords, it is with conviction and pleasure that I endorse the questions and arguments of my noble friend Lord Vaizey, and those of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. We should not censure the American notice of withdrawal from UNESCO, but follow it. That step was not an act of pique or isolationism but an appropriate and long overdue reaction to an anomalous situation. My noble friend Lord Vaizey, who is highly qualified on this subject, has listed some of the anomalies of UNESCO. But he could acquaint this House with only the tip of the iceberg. Noble Lords who wish for fuller information will find it in an illuminating article by Mr. Tom Bethell in the spring 1983 issue of Policy Review, an American quarterly, and also in an editorial in the Spectator of 14th January.

The central anomaly is, of course, that the countries which provide most of the budget have no control over the organisation, which serves as platform and instrument for sustained and virulent attacks on them. The handful of Western countries which supply the bulk of the funds are outvoted by the hosts of third world and Eastern bloc delegates, many of countries whose contributions are a mere few thousand dollars. They can vote even if they do not pay their contributions. And the organisation and its activities are pervaded by hostility to the West. The United States is by far the largest contributor to UNESCO, and simultaneously the principal target of its enmity.

Is it possible to remove these anomalies? They may be slightly modified, or made less obvious by cosmetic changes. They will not be much diminished, let alone removed. They are endemic in major United Nations affiliates, notably UNESCO, FAO, UNCTAD and the United Nations Development Programme.

Hostility to the West is long-standing in UNESCO. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has reminded us, the advocacy of a new world information order emerged in the early 1970s, emerged simultaneously with that of a new international economic order. The latter is designed to tax Western citizens for the benefit of third world governments. The new world information order is designed to eliminate what is left of honest reporting of third world affairs, especially of the anti-Western stances and of the domestic conduct of despotic, totalitarian governments.

One example will show how long-standing is the bias of UNESCO against the West and its institutions. In 1970, on the occasion of the centenary of Lenin's birth, UNESCO called on all member governments to pay tribute to his memory as a great humanitarian. Lenin's achievement was indeed momentous. He made himself master of a large country which, partly through him, became a super-power. But to term him a great humanitarian is a perversion of the language, especially inappropriate to an organisation purporting to serve education, science and culture.

Does UNESCO promote international goodwill or nourish fruitful cultural contacts? The persistent hostility to the West does not promote international amity. The so-called new world information order would restrict international contacts, not expand them. Scholars, writers and journalists do not need UNESCO for contacts with their opposite numbers elsewhere. My own experience over decades, and that of my colleagues in academic life and related activities, both in the West and in the third world, makes this clear. The vast volume of outpourings from UNESCO—more than 300 million pages a year, according to the Spectator article, much of it hollow or biased rhetoric—impairs, even smothers, worthwhile cultural relations.

UNESCO's contribution to third world literacy—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oram—is also dubious. Much of the growth of literacy under its programmes is purely illusory, statistical; and in any case the value of literacy depends on the content and purpose of the instruction. In this realm bilateral aid is far more effective. The activities of the British Council are greatly appreciated by many ordinary people in the third world. This is conspicuous, for example, in India. And scholars from this country, as distinct from pedlars of political causes, find the British Council far more helpful than UNESCO.

A useful reform of the organisation would be to transfer it from Paris to a third world city such as Calcutta, Addis Ababa or Caracas. This would reduce the attraction of UNESCO for those who take part in it only for what they can get out of it. It would also help the host country by providing income and employment there.

My Lords, until well after the Second World War it was a firmly established principle that the modest grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare schemes should go only to governments for whose conduct the Secretary of State was answerable to Parliament. We have descended a long way down the wrong road since then. Parliament can know little about the activities of UNESCO, and has no control over them. Would it not be better to divert our contribution to the British Council which, whatever its shortcomings, is far more helpful to this country and to the citizens of the third world than is UNESCO?

9.7 p.m.

Baroness Young

My Lords, given the current interest in UNESCO arising from the American announcement of withdrawal at the end of 1983, this is a timely Question. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Vaizey for asking it. He is particularly at home with the subject, because he is one of the members of our national commission which provides us with valuable advice on the workings of UNESCO. I am also grateful to my noble friend for having given me notice of the questions he was to ask. However, I shall begin by saying something about the outcome of the general conference, the subject of the Unstarred Question.

The answer to this Question is a qualified affirmative. For the United Kingdom this was a fairly successful conference. Apart from a few outbursts, political excesses of the sort we have known at previous conferences were markedly absent. Before the conference, we had identified three areas of particular concern to the United Kingdom. These were issues concerning the media, the size of the budget, and questions of human rights. These three issues were specifically referred to tonight by my noble friend Lord Eccles and by the noble Lords, Lord Oram and Lord McGregor of Durris.

At the conference, we and other like-minded countries successfully resisted any further advances towards an unsatisfactory new world information and communication order or any other attempt to shackle the freedom of the media. The proposed budget was reduced by some 10 million dollars, although the final approved figure still contained an element of real growth difficult to accept in today's economic climate. The outcome on human rights was less clear-cut—but even here, no lasting damage was done to the Western position.

The main focus of the conference was on UNESCO's core programmes in education, science and culture, where there were welcome signs of increased support for our long-held policy of seeking to make UNESCO's programmes more relevant to the needs of developing countries. This was a theme well expressed by my noble friend Lord Eccles.

Here, I should like to pay tribute to the efforts which have been made by previous British Ministers in this respect. In his speech, my noble friend Lord Vaizey referred to the lasting impact made by my noble friend Lord Eccles at the 1960 General Conference, when he urged UNESCO to concentrate its activities on education in the developing countries. I know, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, when he was responsible for relations with UNESCO, pursued this line with vigour. And it has over the years had an effect. This is what really matters. A UNESCO General Conference can only be judged by the effects the discussions and decisions have on subsequent UNESCO programmes. In this case these should, to a considerable extent, be positive.

I will turn now to the five specific questions posed by my noble friend Lord Vaizey. First, the budget. Obviously we cannot be fully satisfied that enough was done before and during the conference to contain the budget, as the final approved figure was larger than we should have liked. But some progress was made and I believe that we can build on this in the future.

The director general had proposed a figure of approximately 385 million dollars for the two years 1984 and 1985. This was based on a real growth rate of 6.1 per cent. which was not acceptable to the main Western donors, who had, in 1981, issued a statement arguing for zero growth in real terms for the United Nations agencies for the first half of the 1980s. The Minister for Overseas Development wrote to the director general in September expressing our deep concern. We also took the lead in preparing and submitting a draft resolution proposing an alternative figure based on zero real growth. This was cosponsored by five other member states; the U.S.A., the Federal German Republic, Netherlands, Canada and Switzerland. This was the first time that such a step had been taken in UNESCO for many years.

In a search for a compromise solution, the Nordic countries introduced a proposal for 374.5 million dollars, which represented approximately 4 per cent. growth. Somewhat to our surprise, at the last minute the director general indicated that he would adopt this proposal as his own. It was a long way from the British proposal but represented a saving of more than 10 million dollars. Moreover, we were able to keep our own resolution on the table. Our only concession was to abstain in the vote on the director general's formal proposal, rather than vote against.

As regards the use to which the money is put—that is, the question of possible extravagance and inefficiency in Paris to which several noble Lords have referred—this is a very complicated issue to which it is difficult to do real justice in a speech of this nature. May I say first of all that, on the whole, I agree with the criticisms which have been voiced. One of our major doubts about UNESCO is that it represents such poor value for money compared with bilateral aid programmes; a point made by my noble friend Lord Bauer. In the past, we have argued consistently for decentralisation, better management, and, above all, effective evaluation. This has had some effect, but much more needs to be done. Our hope is that the shock administered by the United States withdrawal will produce a climate of opinion in which reform is seen as both desirable and necessary.

The biggest obstacle in the past has been inbuilt inertia and reluctance to change in both other delegations, and the secretariat. We have already started discussions in Paris with like-minded countries, and are cautiously optimistic about the possibility of drawing up well before the spring meeting of the executive board, which is to discuss the implications of the United States withdrawal, an agreed list of changes that we could then press to be introduced as soon as possible. We will also consider the possibility of seeking the involvement of some outside agency, such as management consultants, in the process of improvement.

My noble friend's third question concerned the key figure of the director general, Mr. M'Bow of Senegal. He was elected to the post in 1974 and re-elected in 1980—in both cases, unopposed. I do not feel able to comment in detail on unsubstantiated press criticism of him. As regards our own attitude, our general unease and dissatisfaction with UNESCO's performance in recent years must to some extent reflect upon its chief executive. But he is responsible to the executive board and General Conference and cannot fairly be blamed for implementing decisions of those bodies of which we disapproved, even if we had joined, reluctantly, in a consensus. Ever since he became director general, Mr. M'Bow has promoted the principle of consensus in decision making wherever possible. This has on balance worked in the interests of the Western minority. We have always found him ready to listen to our views, even when he clearly disagrees with them.

In any case, UNESCO's failings are deep rooted and cannot be blamed on any single individual. His current term of office does not expire until 1987, so it is premature to consider what attitude we will take if he seeks re-election (which at this stage is by no means certain). The question of who should be the next director general of UNESCO is, however, one that we shall be pursuing in our discussions with a broad range of other member states in the fairly near future.

The fourth question was on the media. Media issues have been a source of controversy at successive UNESCO General Conferences since 1972. As I said earlier, we consider the outcome of the recent conference as broadly satisfactory. In particular, no attempts were made to define the concept of the so-called new world information and communication order under the acronym NWICO, which has overshadowed UNESCO's recent work in this field. The United Kingdom, in common with most Western countries, views the demands for any new order as a practical problem of development, no different for communication and media requirements than for any other sector.

On the other hand, a minority of countries have argued that a NWICO should be a new international code of conduct governing the operations of the media, with an implicit assumption of increased state supervision. Within these arguments, certain member states have sought to gain legitimacy for practices of repression and control over the media, including those to which my noble friend referred, and those referred to at length by Lord McGregor. These are anathema to us; we are firmly committed to media freedom and we have consistently warned UNESCO that such a move would be wholly unacceptable. The threat of codification of a NWICO has in fact receded as a result of the General Conference. There is now agreement that any NWICO must be seen as an evolving and continuous process within the context of development. The United Kingdom efforts played a major part in achieving this.

The conference also agreed that political barriers to the free flow of information, including censorship by Governments, merited study by UNESCO on an equal footing with those barriers of a technical or financial nature. UNESCO will conduct research into this and other critical areas, such as the concept of the "right to communicate". We will ensure that the United Kingdom's opinion on these topics is made known to the organisation. The focus of attention for developing countries was the International Programme for the Development of Communication, which they view as a welcome new multilateral aid source. They requested substantial voluntary financial contributions from the developed countries into the IPDC fund. The United Kingdom has declined to contribute to the IPDC, stating its preference for working through its bilateral aid programme. I should like to stress the active part traditionally played by the United Kingdom public and private sector in media development and training through organisations such as the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association, the Commonwealth Press Union, the Commonwealth Journalists' Association, the Thomson Foundation and the Commonwealth Foundation. Our professional experience has much to offer.

The fifth question that my noble friend asked was on the subject of human rights. These have been a proper concern of UNESCO since its foundation.

The current key issue is the extent to which UNESCO should become involved with research into the concept of the "rights of peoples". At the General Conference, the USA argued strongly for the deletion of this aspect of the programme. But this was a difficult argument to sustain, as it had been accepted a year earlier in the consensus agreement on the Medium Term Plan. At that particular conference, the main theme of the British keynote intervention was that the guiding principle for all UNESCO's future activities should be that the interests of the individual are paramount and should never be overlooked. The Africans took a lead in these discussions, basing themselves on a recent OAU Charter on Human Rights and the Rights of Peoples. The Soviet bloc were firmly in support. Eventually an uneasy compromise was patched up; the US withdrew their objection but insisted on a revision of the text of the relevant resolution to the effect that there was a distinction to be drawn between universally recognised individual human rights and the rights of peoples, but that the relationship warranted examination.

This is an issue to which many developing countries attach considerable importance. It also provides a platform for the Soviet bloc to promote values which are anathema to the West. The outcome was uncertain, and there are obviously major battles to be fought in this area in the future if the trend towards the strengthening of collective rights at the expense of individual rights is to be halted and turned back.

This is certainly an aspect of UNESCO's programmes to which we shall devote greater attention in future, and which we shall be discussing with our friends. Our main aim will be to deflect UNESCO's energies in this area into activities which will have the effect within its fields of competence of promoting those universally recognised human rights defined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948.

Turning now to our general attitude towards UNESCO, we had for some time been concerned about certain trends in UNESCO. We had taken a leading role in criticising the organisation's performance in many areas. In addition to the specific concerns on media and human rights, we were above all not satisfied that we and other member states received good value for money. We had achieved some limited successes up until the middle of 1983, but were far from satisfied. Before the conference we had decided that we should seriously consider withdrawal if the results were in some major way unsatisfactory.

In the event this was not the case, and, with the exception of the United States, our informal contacts with other delegates indicated that there was little prospect, if any, of other withdrawals. On that point, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked whether we sought to dissuade the United States from leaving. I can only say that we regard it as a matter for each country to decide for itself.

Shortly after the conference my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is responsible for United Kingdom relations with UNESCO, held a meeting—that is, last December—with the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO (an advisory body consisting of some 70 people eminent in the fields covered by UNESCO) to consider the outcome of the conference and to seek the views of members on UNESCO.

The meeting was frank and revealing. A few members argued for United Kingdom withdrawal, but the clear majority, of those who spoke were in favour of our staying in on the grounds that to leave would be to turn our back on an important channel of communication and co-operation with developing countries. Most argued for continuing to fight for improvements from within. The point was made that we had had a fair measure of success over the years, both in defending British interests—that is, in communication and media issues—and also in obtaining better value for money. But there was widespread recognition that much remained to be done. There was much trenchant criticism of such issues as the growth in overall resources; budgetary techniques and practices; political aspects of certain programmes—for example, communication and human rights—staffing; management; effectiveness; and the need for more and better evaluation.

In the light of all this Ministers gave careful consideration to the possibility of United Kingdom withdrawal. The balance of argument was a fine one. On the one hand, there were the sums of money we spend on UNESCO. I hope that by saying that I answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, who asked whether we thought this was just a small sum. We recognise the sums of money that we spend on UNESCO, which we feel could be better spent in other ways, and the misuse of UNESCO for political purposes. On the other hand, there was a natural reluctance to breach the principle of universality, particularly for an organisation which, rightly or wrongly, is highly valued by many developing countries; and a recognition that most of UNESCO's activities remain in principle worthwhile.

Here may I say that I listened with great interest to the noble Lord's suggestion that much of the more worthwhile of UNESCO's activities could be undertaken through some different, and cheaper, mechanism. This is something we shall be discussing with our friends during this year. It could also be argued that we can best defend important British interests, in such areas as freedom of the media and human rights, by continuing to argue from within. Nor could we ignore the fact that none of our European partners had, so far as we know, seriously contemplated withdrawal.

We eventually decided that the right course for the United Kingdom, at least for the time being, was to stay in UNESCO and fight for reform from within. We indicated this decision to the United States authorities before they decided to withdraw. We fully understand the reasons which led the United States to take its decision.

The United Kingdom will continue to make every effort to improve significantly the organisation's programme and management. We are seeking to coordinate our actions with those of like-minded countries. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write in due course to the director general indicating to him that we think radical changes are necessary and spelling out those areas of UNESCO's programmes and management in which we seek improvements. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Finally, I can assure noble Lords that the situation will be reviewed carefully towards the end of 1984, and if satisfactory progress has not been made United Kingdom withdrawal will again be seriously considered. Since withdrawal takes effect at the end of the calendar year following the year in which formal notice of withdrawal is made, there is no point in reconsidering our decision earlier.

I started by thanking my noble friend Lord Vaizey for introducing this Unstarred Question this evening. I think that we have had a very valuable debate. We have had most interesting speeches from a number of noble Lords who are very knowledgeable on the subject of UNESCO. I think that it has been a valuable occasion. I shall certainly draw the debate to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past nine o'clock.