UNESCO Membership: UK Intentions (Hansard, 5 May 1993)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey informed the House on 24th March, we are keeping under review a possible resumption of our UNESCO membership.

§ Lord Montagu of Beaulieu
My Lords, will my noble friend accept that while there were many, including myself, who supported Her Majesty's Government's decision to leave UNESCO, which was undoubtedly a maladministered and frequently corrupt body, times have now changed? Does my noble friend agree that it is now increasingly detrimental to Britain to be the only member of the European Community not taking an active part in UNESCO's work, and that while Britain remains outside UNESCO important cultural initiatives such as the restoration of Angkor Wat in Cambodia are taking place without the involvement of British experts and consultants? Finally, does my noble friend agree that if cultural considerations are to be given due weight in regions of conflict like the former Yugoslavia, then Britain and the United States, with their membership of the Security Council, would be able to give UNESCO's voice more weight at the UN?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend, during the debate on the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on 24th March, paid tribute to the progress that has been made in UNESCO. She also stressed that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given an assurance that he approached the question of renewal of membership with a genuinely open mind. But my noble friend did then offer a number of caveats and stressed that the cost of renewed membership would be some £8 million to £10 million. We would certainly wish to ensure that we had value for money from any renewed membership.

§ Lord Bottomley
My Lords, as a former Minister who was once responsible for UNESCO, and having 698 attended a conference on this matter, I know of the valuable work that that body does. Will the Minister, instead of saying that the matter is under review, give an assurance that we shall rejoin UNESCO as soon as possible?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, the only assurance I can give is that we will look at the issue very carefully. If it is in our interests, and if we feel there is value for money attached to it, we will join. I must repeat, however, that my noble friend stressed that a decision has not yet been taken. But she will be the first to inform the House when such a decision has been reached.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, cannot the noble Lord give some idea of when such a decision might be taken and whether the matter has high priority? In short, can he not give his noble friend a rather more enthusiastic answer?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I thought that I had given as enthusiastic an answer as possible when I stressed the genuinely open mind on this issue of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am afraid I cannot take the noble Lord any further as to the timing of any such decision.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I associate myself with everything the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said. Will the Minister explain why there is need for further delay in the light of the fact that UNESCO has undertaken all the reforms required of it? On a recent visit to Washington I was informed informally by the State Department that it is now the view in Washington that UNESCO is a better run UN agency than many others and that therefore the Clinton Administration is likely to rejoin very soon. What conversations has the noble Lord's noble friend the Minister had with the Clinton Administration on the matter?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I am aware of the views of the American Administration. I can only repeat that my noble friend did issue a certain number of caveats about rejoining. She said that there were still certain reforms that needed to be pursued although she did stress very much that a great deal of progress has been made under the leadership of Dr. Federico Mayor. But we cannot ignore the cost of renewed membership of some £8 million or £10 million. Very difficult decisions on the matter have to be taken. I am trying to stress to the noble Baroness that before we take any decisions we have to be sure that we are going to get value for money from that increased cost of £8 million to £10 million and that it will be in our own national interests to join.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many will support him in his emphasis on value for money? Does he agree that at a time when we are asking many organisations and interests at home to do with less money we want to be absolutely certain that we are not spending money overseas on something which is not as important as some of the projects we have to turn down?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend is right to stress the importance of value for money. It is for all departments to examine their budgets very carefully and to ensure that any expenditure they seek provides value for money for taxpayers as a whole.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem experienced with UNESCO has also occurred with the FAO? Is he aware that the head of the FAO is able to remain in power long after he has passed his usefulness by canvassing recipient countries for support while those countries which are supporting FAO do not seem to have any say at all? Is he aware that that situation can continue for a long time? Have Her Majesty's Government any plans for correcting that? Have they made any suggestions?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says about the FAO, but he will appreciate that it is a different question from that on the Order Paper.

§ Baroness Nicol
My Lords, I am curious about how value for money would be decided in this case. Can the noble Lord give an illustration of what he would consider value for money in this context?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I can give no obvious illustration. I have to stress that when we are talking about expenditure of £8 million to £10 million of taxpayers' money we have to be sure that it is in the national interest that that money is so expended.

§ Lord Montagu of Beaulieu
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many firms in this country are suffering financially to a much greater extent than the £8 million we would pay in subscription?

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, as I have tried to stress, all matters will be taken into account by my right honourable friend and by my noble friend when they come to make a decision. I repeat that £8 million or £10 million is a large sum of money, and expenditure of that sort must be justified.