UNESCO (Hansard, 21 February 1995)

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, we keep membership of UNESCO under close review, taking into account several factors including the progress made by UNESCO on reform, existing financial pressures and other priority demands for scarce resources.

§ Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather familiar Answer. Will he confirm that the financial issue amounts, as we have heard in the past, to an annual subscription, if that is the term, of about £10 million per year? Does my noble friend recall that it was as a result of a conference held in London in 1945 that UNESCO was founded, that its first director general was an Englishman and that this country has played a major role in its development? Will my noble friend confirm that the two criteria which caused us to leave UNESCO—maladministration and questions relating to the freedom of the press—have been dealt with? I believe that my noble friend Lady Chalker referred to a "dead duck" in relation to those two themes. Does my noble friend agree that it is sad that we left the club on ethical grounds and that we are unable to rejoin because we cannot afford the subscription?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, my noble friend is right in his estimate of the order of magnitude of the subscription to UNESCO which, depending on whether the United States is a member, would be either £11 million or £8 million per year. My noble friend is right to point out the distinguished contribution which British citizens have made to UNESCO over the years. He is also correct in regard to his two points about our reasons for leaving UNESCO in 1985. The matter relating to the freedom of the press has now been resolved, and reforms have been put in place to deal with many of the outstanding internal deficiencies. Having said that, 1032 however, UNESCO is not in what we consider to be an ideal form although we recognise and put on record the considerable improvements that have been made.
The position now is that if we were to return to UNESCO, we would have to find the subscription which, in turn, would have to come from some other part of our budget. The savings made through not subscribing to UNESCO meant increased contributions to other similar activities which fell within the general competence of UNESCO. Since there are more ways than one of skinning a dead cat—if I may use a vulgar phrase—we feel that we can contribute most effectively through bilateral means.

§ Lord Ennals
My Lords, we are not talking about a dead cat but about a very important international organisation in the formation of which, as the noble Lord said, we played an important part. Will the noble Lord confirm that, except for paying that modest affiliation fee, there are no other policy reasons why we should not rejoin UNESCO? Will the noble Lord also confirm that as a result of not being a member of UNESCO, we have already lost (in terms of contracts which would be beneficial to the British economy) more than we would lose by paying our affiliation fee? In view of all that has been said, why do not the British Government show some courage and decide to rejoin UNESCO?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that by not being in UNESCO we have lost a large number of contracts we might otherwise have had. It is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that that is the case. We see no evidence to support that proposition. As I said, we believe that the most effective way in which we can contribute to the common good along the lines of the principles of Article I of UNESCO's charter is through bilateral means. For as long as we consider that that is the most effective way of contributing, we shall no doubt continue as at present.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, whatever the attitude to bilateral means, surely our failure to support UNESCO suggests that we are lukewarm in our support of the United Nations. Is not that particularly inappropriate in the 50th year of the United Nations?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, no. If I may say so, I do not think that the inference drawn by the noble Baroness is either logical or based on the facts and the way in which we contribute to the United Nations in general.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although there may have been improvements in the way UNESCO is run it is far from being regarded as a cost-effective organisation, given its overmanning at the centre? Is it not the case that many Members of your Lordships' House could suggest better ways in which the cause of international cultural co-operation can be forwarded than by clinging to an organisation which, whatever the high hopes of 1945, when there were many other high hopes around, has not fulfilled them?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We are concerned about the manning 1033 levels in UNESCO. We consider that the organisation is perhaps not as efficient as it might be in that regard. On my noble friend's second question, I do not think noble Lords have ever been backward at coming forward with ideas for spending money along the lines which my noble friend described.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, can it really be the case that the Government cannot afford the subscription? It is not a huge amount of money in terms of Britain's total public expenditure or in terms of our aid budget. Is the noble Lord aware that the Government have just taken a decision to cut £11 million from our contribution to the European Development Fund? Could that saving be used to support UNESCO and so allow us to become involved in its work at a time when all UN agencies need our support and involvement?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Baroness is not accurate about the European Development Fund as no decision has been taken on our contribution to EDFVIII. As to the total cost of contributing to UNESCO, the Government could find £11 million per year if they deemed it an appropriate way of spending public money. I hope I made clear in an earlier answer that we do not believe that that is a priority on which we should spend money at present.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree—

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Cross-Benches!

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that words such as "maladministration" and "irregularities" are extremely polite euphemisms for some of the extraordinary and outrageous practices that went on in UNESCO at the time of our leaving the organisation? Irrespective of the cost, can the noble Lord assure us that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the house of UNESCO is thoroughly cleansed before we think of going back into it?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The internal arrangements of UNESCO were deplorable at the time we left. Noble Lords can rest assured that, as always in the context of international organisations, we put an extremely high priority on financial regularity. We shall certainly make no exception for that organisation.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but I must press the noble Lord. He says that I am wrong about the decision to cut our contribution to the European Development Fund. Can he tell the House whether the Government are or are not considering a substantial cut to our contribution to the European Development Fund?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. We have been considering making a cut to EDFVIII, but she puts figures to the cut which are completely hearsay.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, does the noble Lord think it remarkable that the Government and 1034 Parliament can find £1 billion extra next year to pour into the black hole of European waste and fraud and yet cannot find an extra £10 million to contribute to an organisation which will help education and culture in areas throughout the world which badly need them?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Lord opens the whole European debate. It is not appropriate to embark on that in Question Time. I merely reiterate that in present circumstances we do not consider that a subscription to UNESCO is a priority we wish to take up.