HL Deb 12 February 1985 vol 460 cc103-4

2.44 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government how, if they leave UNESCO, they propose to continue to participate in the four major international scientific programmes under its auspices and the six major international non-governmental organisations which it subsidises.

Baroness Young

My Lords, the possibilities for participation by non-members of UNESCO in the four programmes will become clearer when the Executive Board considers the implication of the United States withdrawal later this week. Participation in the non-governmental organisations should not be affected if we ceased to be a member of UNESCO.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, does this mean, in effect, that we shall be able to benefit from knowledge of the United States' mistake, if mistake it turns out to be?

Baroness Young

My Lords, our preliminary view as to the effect on the scientific programmes of withdrawal from UNESCO is that it should be possible to continue to participate in two of the four major international scientific programmes, the International Oceanographic Commission and the International Geological Co-operation Programme, but that it would not be possible to continue to be directly involved in the International Hydrological Programme and the Intergovernmental Programme, Man and the Biosphere.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, since the United States left nearly a year ago and since we gave notice that we might wish to leave, UNESCO has mended its ways? Has it got fewer bureaucrats employed in Paris? Is it less highly politicised than it was? Is there a sign that we may reconsider our position, or are we now intending to leave?

Baroness Young

My Lords, the position of our Government is that we have given notice of withdrawal which, unless rescinded, will become effective on 31st December 1985. As regards my noble friend's first supplementary, the reforms within UNESCO are still being considered by that organisation.

Lord Oram

My Lords, is it not one of the major and perhaps most justifiable criticisms of UNESCO that, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has just said, it is top-heavy and a preponderance of its expenditure is on its headquarters in Paris? On the other hand, is it not the case that the scientific programmes to which the Question on the Order Paper refers include a large number of very useful projects in the field? Therefore, would it not be a tragedy if that work in the field, rather than in Paris, was brought to an end? Can the Minister assure the House that in the remaining months of this year the Government will give careful reconsideration to their announcement of withdrawal from UNESCO, and, instead of meekly following the Americans in this matter, will make every effort to ensure the continuance of the good parts of the work of UNESCO?

Baroness Young

My Lords, the Government's view of UNESCO was set out in a letter from my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development as long ago as April 1984, and the reasons set out include the fact that there is excessive centralisation of management.

With regard to the Government's consideration of withdrawal, before taking the decision to give notice we in fact consulted the interested bodies, including the Natural Sciences Advisory Committee of the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO, the Royal Society and Government departments.