HL Deb 10 March 1993 vol 543 cc1115-34

6.20 p.m.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking in response to the recommendations in the report Education without frontiers published by the Overseas Students Trust.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this Question primarily to draw the attention of your Lordships and the Government to the new European Community dimension on education and to the absolute importance of education and training in Britain if Britain is to face up to the opportunities and problems of the European single market.

Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I shall not mention the word "Maastricht" this evening beyond reminding the House of something which is sometimes forgotten in the current debate. Whatever happens to the Maastricht Treaty, the European single market is here to stay. For British education the single market has massive implications. We must organise our education to ensure that people have the skills and qualities which enable them to be competitive in the world's biggest single market of 340 million consumers.

We have the great advantage that English has become the world language in both commerce and technology. However, we are handicapped in making the most of our business relationships because we are the most linguistically illiterate nation in Europe. Also, in a world of fast changing technology our education system is still ill-adapted to provide flexible training facilities throughout a working life.

This useful report on these issues comes from the Overseas Students Trust. It is the last report from its retiring director, Martin Kenyon. The trust has now become part of the Centre for Educational Research at the London School of Economics. I had the honour to chair the Ditchley Park Conference which was the culmination of three years of seminars on those subjects. The report is the work of many distinguished educationists including Sir Albert Sloman and Sir Kenneth Berrill. So much for the non-partisan character and authority behind its analysis and recommendations.

The situation that the report addresses is serious. At its best, British education is as good as education anywhere in the world, but we suffer from a number of competitive disadvantages. For example, in 1988, the latest year for which I have comparative figures, the proportion of 16 to 18 year-olds in full-time education and training was 35 per cent. in Britain compared with 47 per cent. in Germany and 66 per cent. in France.

I offer a couple of relevant examples of the problems for our secondary schools where the number of teachers has fallen from over 224,000 in 1986 to 198,000 in 1991. First, 25 per cent. of those teaching maths in our schools have no qualification in mathematics. In computer studies the percentage is 69 per cent. As regards foreign languages, which are so essential for an island nation like ours doing business with the mainland of Europe, 18 per cent. of those teaching French in our schools have no qualification in French; in German the figure is 25 per cent. and for other modern languages it is 35 per cent. Those figures are for all schools in England and Wales, but if the independent sector is excluded the figure is significantly higher for schools in the state education system.

It seems clear to me that to compete in Europe we must give top priority to increasing investment in education and training. The world of employment—and, sadly, the world of unemployment—is changing at an unprecedented rate. Britain's economic success in the future depends on the brainpower, abilities and creativity of the total workforce. No longer does one pay for muscle. More and more, the whole business environment is databased and is global. Even small and medium-sized businesses find themselves with foreign competitors. Economic success cannot be left to senior management. It impinges on the total workforce. In the light of all those characteristics of modern industry, it is not sufficient for the education system to produce a set product, turn people out of schools and colleges and leave it at that. Industry wants people with an ability to adapt and absorb new skills and to have the educational means to do so several times within a working lifetime.

Distance learning has an important part to play in that. It is flexible and can cater for mature students, young students, part-time students and people in or out of work. All can undertake further education at times convenient to themselves. The notion that formal educational instruction normally ceases when one enters the workforce is a totally outdated concept.

I turn now to the European Community dimension. Increasingly in the past five years businessmen in the EC have been taking decisions in a European context. Their staff must be able to sell, to manage and to take tactical and strategic decisions in the multinational, multicultural context of the new Europe. Inevitably the whole of education, and not just vocational training, forms an essential ingredient in the creation of the single market.

The European Commission's Memorandum on Higher Education in the European Community states: the success of the Internal Market depends on having people who have the capability to operate across national and cultural boundaries". Throughout the European Community there is pressure on institutions of higher education to produce graduates whose training, skills and vision are increasingly European in content and focus. There is nothing new or frightening about that. The old medieval universities of Scotland and England were inherently international. Their degrees gave graduates the licence to teach anywhere in Europe. The libraries were international in character. Mutual recognition of diplomas did not begin with the haggling over this matter in the 1980s in Brussels but over 600 years earlier in Paris, Bologna, St. Andrews and Oxford. Indeed, what hindered that mobility in those years was not the structure and style of the universities of Europe but wars and rumours of war which so often made travel hazardous or impossible. Who can say, when we look at the former Yugoslavia or listen day by day to the events unfolding in Russia, that history is not in some danger of repeating itself in that regard?

The Treaty of Rome made no mention of education. It was considered too sensitive a national responsibility, and still is to some extent. Jean Monnet said, when asked whether he had any second thoughts on the way in which the European Community was created, that he wished that he had started with education. Nearly 40 years later that defect is being remedied by the reality of the single market. Post-school education has unquestionably become a European Community concern.

As a consequence, the European Community has launched a series of programmes to assist in the promotion of mobility through educational exchange. The ERASMUS Exchange Programme is already a major operation, with a budget of £135 million over the three-year period 1990 to 1992. There are other schemes with strange Bruxellois acronyms to come from the Community like COMET and LINGUA. There is also the TEMPUS scheme, which is the EC's response to the hopes and expectations of eastern and central Europe. That has a 1991–92 budget of £46 million and the programme helps staff and students from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Romania to come to higher education institutions in Community countries.

At present there are 70,000 students currently involved. That is still a small proportion—about 2 per cent. of the appropriate age group of the student population. However, it is hoped that before too long 10 per cent. of the total number of students in the Community will be undertaking those exchanges. Qualitatively that would be extremely significant and represent a major change from the conditions of the immediate past.

But these programmes are by no means the totality of what is happening in the development of education across frontiers within the Community. The European regional development fund, which I helped to found, provides educational funding, as do the other so-called structural funds. I find it exciting and satisfying that those funds serving the regions of Europe now in real terms total more than the post-war Marshall Fund. In the UK institutions of higher education have been quick to see the need to extend their tuition and training beyond national boundaries and to focus on cross-border degrees and distance learning.

Through bilateral arrangements separate from EC schemes, joint degree courses are being developed with comparable institutions in other European Community countries. These arrangements produce graduates who have spent typically two years at another European university. They emerge as fluent in two languages and are familiar with the style and culture of two European countries. The university with which I am most familiar, Heriot Watt in Edinburgh, of which I had the honour to be Chancellor for a number of years—I had the even greater honour to be succeeded by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—has been particularly good in ensuring that our technologists and engineers are emerging increasingly with degrees that have a language aspect which will enable them to play their full part within the European Community.

What do we look for from the Government? The report has a series of sensible recommendations. I hope that the noble Viscount will respond positively to them. First and foremost, we hope that the Government will put their heart into meeting the educational challenge of the single market both within Britain and in terms of Britain's contribution to the Community as a whole. Within Britain the report emphasises that Britain must change fast in its attitude to learning languages. European languages should be at the centre of United Kingdom education from primary schools to universities. I cannot tell noble Lords the satisfaction I felt the other day when I discovered that my grandsons, aged five and seven, could count up to 30 in French. I thought that was a useful, if modest, beginning.

Secondly, there should be priority for continuing education for adults including distance learning and retraining of those in the workforce. Within the Community itself, student and teacher mobility should be extended. ERASMUS and the other Community programmes should be strengthened. British institutions should be enabled and encouraged to participate fully in the European Community TEMPUS programme for meeting the educational know-how needs of east and central Europe and the former Soviet Union. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in the Chamber. I hope she was nodding her head. She knows so much about these matters.

The truth is that educational exchanges can be one of the most constructive forms of development aid, and indeed they are the best form of influence whether it is to the former communist empire or to the former European colonial empires. Incidentally, the report is right to utter the caution that expanding education across European frontiers should not be done at the expense of providing educational aid to third world countries with whom we have longstanding relationships.

In the run-up to 1992 and the single market, the Government mounted a useful major campaign to alert industry to the changes and the challenges. Is there not now a need for a comparable campaign on the educational front to create a national awareness in schools and colleges, in businesses and trade unions so that the opportunities and developments in higher education and adult training can be fully exploited and so that Britain can play her full part in these exciting new Community schemes of Education without frontiers?

6.33 p.m.

Lord Carr of Hadley

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for bringing this report to our attention. I wish strongly to support him in his plea to the Government to take seriously the recommendations which the report contains. We should also be grateful to the Overseas Students Trust—I support what the noble Lord said about that body—for taking hold of this important but under-recognised subject.

It is not the first time that the Overseas Students Trust has stepped in at a critical moment in British educational policy and action. It did so in the 1980s when the then government—I must be careful as regards the strength of the words I use—foolishly rushed in and abolished the then system governing the entry of overseas students to this country. They were not foolish in abolishing the old system but they were foolish in doing so without first having thought about what to put in its place. A débâcle occurred and the Overseas Students Trust stepped in and gathered together people of goodwill from various sides who were committed not to campaign to reverse the political decision but to construct a proper policy to take its place. I had the privilege and honour of playing a part in that exercise that was somewhat similar to the part the noble Lord has played in this recent exercise. I wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Pym, who at that time was Foreign Secretary, for taking that report seriously and translating some of it into concrete action. He did not take as much action as we would have liked, but he did enough to provide the nucleus of a new role for Britain in overseas education.

The Overseas Students Trust has a long and honourable record in this field and it is sad that this report is its swan-song. I wish to add my tribute to those paid by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, to the trust and its director, Martin Kenyon, and also to express great pleasure that its research work will not just die away but is now to be incorporated within the London School of Economics centre for educational research.

Educational activity on an international scale was originally traditionally thought of principally in terms of its importance as aid to developing countries. That role was immensely important. When, 30 years ago now, I became a Minister for aid responsible for technical co-operation, it did not take me long to develop a strong feeling that £1 million of aid delivered effectively in the field of education and training did more good to the developing countries receiving it than £100 million of capital money. I still feel very strongly that it is in this field of technical assistance and educational and training aid that a great contribution can and should be made.

However, it was also true that the giver of that aid, Britain, was gaining much benefit for itself. There is no doubt that when we receive students here or when we send our teachers overseas, we build a connection with this country which is of lasting value to the interests of this country as well as to the countries aided. Educational and training aid is still important to developing countries in the third world. But now, as we all know, it is also immensely important in eastern Europe. One of the first things we have to realise is that we simply must gear up our efforts of giving to meet the larger need for aid in the educational and training field that exists in eastern Europe and in the third world. It would be tragic if we failed to help in eastern Europe as much as we should and if we did so only at the expense of not doing what is needed in the third world. There is an urgent need to gear up education across frontiers as a vital instrument of development.

But if the educational effort across frontiers has become of even greater importance rather than less, it is also true that it has developed a much greater self-interest for the giver than was the case in the past. The report brings out the fact that it is in Britain's own interests to be extremely active and expansive in this field. The report's highlighting of that aspect is probably its most important feature.

As the noble Lord has said, over the past year or two there has been a deliberate and fairly successful attempt to concentrate our minds on the business opportunities resulting from the European single market. But the educational and training implications of the single market have so far been not sufficiently well recognised, let alone tackled. To tackle them fully and urgently is a vital part of the action which is needed to make Britain fully competitive in the new single market. We shall only be competitive if we can raise significantly the scale and the quality of British education and training when judged by international standards and when we become much less parochial and much more international in our approach to these subjects.

The report identifies seven areas in which change is required. To bring about this change demands, I believe, strong government recognition, commitment and leadership.

I shall say before the Minister says it (because I shall agree with him when he does) that much of the action has to come from people and organisations outside government. I hope he will also accept that leadership, commitment and action from the Government are also essential. The two must go together. I only intervene in this debate to seek from the Government an assurance that we shall get it, because getting it is of great importance if British industry is to be competitive, and, to mention a matter of topical interest, if the manufacturing part of British industry is once again to grow and flourish. It is essential in the interests of the British manufacturing industry that we pull our weight—to use the Home Secretary's phrase, that we, "punch more than our weight"—in this area, as in others, otherwise we shall fail, and we must not fail.

6.41 p.m.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, I come bearing apologies from my noble friend Lady David, whose wholly inadequate substitute I am, for her quite unavoidable absence tonight.

That wise and good man, Mr. Enoch Powell, was once asked on "Any Questions" what he would do if he could instantly introduce one, and only one, educational reform, and he replied, "Restore compulsory Latin". Think what a shining utopian vision he had in mind. Schoolchildren able to learn modern languages easily; able to explore the literature, the history and the philosophy of Greece and Rome; and a European community of university people with the possibility at least of a common language. Of course we must all say to Mr. Powell, "There's not a hope, sunshine", but we must also try to realise his vision by other means, which would be a practical possibility even for this present Government and even at this late hour. The Dutch renaissance scholar, Desederius Erasmus, was equally at home in Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, or Louvain, and our aim must be to make that possible again for today's students and today's scholars.

The report which is the subject of our debate tonight is the climax of the work of the Overseas Students Trust, and this House must be deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, to Mr. Gordon Wilson and his fellow trustees, and to the director of the trust, Mr. Martin Kenyon, for the splendid work that the trust has done for overseas students and for the enrichment of British university education.

The report makes seven recommendations, and nothing would give me greater pleasure than to speak at length and in detail about all seven of them, because they involve a delicate balance between the needs of the European Community, the third world, and the newly-liberated countries of eastern Europe. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I shall confine myself to Recommendations 1 and 3 on languages and student mobility, for no better reason than shortage of time.

After some 40 years in university education I find now that I know quite a lot of people in departments of modern languages. So I consulted some of them about this report and their reaction to it last weekend. One head of a department in a large university said: "Being a starry-eyed European I subscribe to the ideal of a European academic community. The problem is that the standard of British Arts degrees has fallen so far that no respectable European would dream of enrolling in Britain for reasons unconnected with learning to speak English properly. Most of our modern language students have no idea about grammar, and have lost the will to work in order to achieve accuracy and fluency. Lektors and exchange students are bewildered by the lack of achievement and ambition".

Is the noble Viscount who is to answer aware that more than one British university has had to introduce remedial classes for first-year students in modern languages because their linguistic skills are so imperfect?

Another academic, an administrator, said: "People are quite keen to try exchange schemes, but the future is so uncertain. They are only running on a three-year agreement. Students have all had to eat into their savings or depend on parental support. They involve a lot of administrative work which won't be easier until the credit transfer system is completed".

Or again: "Modern languages staff have been worried about the ability of our students to cope with European university courses. As standards fall that worry becomes increasingly real. All foreign universities want to have links with Oxbridge; getting them to sign up for other universities involves strenuous salesmanship".

And this at a time when increased student numbers mean language teachers are stretched on the teaching front as never before, and their institution's money depends on their improved performance in these perpetual research selectivity exercises. As one teacher put it: "We have made a considerable effort to establish ERASMUS links. What incentive have we for going any further? Not a lot. These exchanges mean a lot of administrative effort, and it is not obvious that the rewards are worthwhile for us".

All those whom I consulted agree that, if the study of foreign languages is to improve in Britain, there needs to be a very big change in the way in which languages are taught in schools. Sir Albert Sloman, in the course of this splendid report, said about the recommendations that "foreign languages are something which children should be learning from the word go". To say that from now on all children between 11 and 16 will be required to study a foreign language is simply not enough for the needs of commerce, industry, or academe in the 21st century. Study must start earlier.

May I ask the Minister, when he comes to reply —and I have given him at least a few hours' notice of these questions—how many state primary schools in England and Wales now teach any foreign language? What percentage of the total of such schools is it? What has been the increase in numbers, not percentages, of primary schools teaching a foreign language in each of the past five years, and how many of such schools teach any language other than French? May I also ask him to tell us what targets the Government have set themselves for developing modern language teaching at the primary stage, whether or not these will be made public, what monitoring of progress will be introduced and what the time-scale and phasing will be?

If, as I strongly suspect I shall, I find his answers reveal a somewhat less than bright and sunny prospect, then the strongly-worded recommendation 1 of this report becomes all the more urgent. It reads: The first change required is to Britain's attitude to learning and speaking foreign languages and it must change fast. This change needs to take place throughout primary, secondary and higher education with language training starting at the earliest possible moment". This is not a cultural imperative. Britons must be able to move easily in the European languages not simply so that they can regurgitate Goethe and recite Racine, but because they will not succeed in competitive commerce in Europe unless they do. Commercial negotiators sitting round a table must be able to understand what their opposite numbers are saying not only to them but to each other.

Last week we were talking about the Welsh language in your Lordships' House. I was reminded of my noble friend Lady White. She is not a first language Welsh speaker, and has been present sometimes when some of us have been conversing yn yr hen iaith; in the old language, in Welsh. Somebody once asked her, "How much Welsh do you actually speak, Lady White?" She said, "I speak and understand a dangerous amount". Our negotiators in Europe, our businessmen, must be able to speak at least a dangerous amount of the European languages. Your Lordships may remember the German statesman—whose name has eluded me all day—who reminded English businessmen, "If I am selling to you we must speak in English, but if you are selling to me wir müssen Deutsch sprechen."

The report makes several linked recommendations about educational mobility. It begins by nagging on that there should be better language training. That cannot be unrelated to the statement in paragraph 3.9: ERASMUS is a considerable success. Nevertheless —it then advocates the lengthening of the period abroad to a minimum of six months, the concentration of ERASMUS students into those institutions able to offer adequate facilities, and the provision of more generous financial assistance to participating institutions.

The ERASMUS scheme should not be a "considerable success"; it should be a runaway success. Why is it not? I have already given some reasons. Students have to obtain extra money to participate. Universities have to take on a burden of administration for no reward. Departments have absolutely no incentive to promote the scheme. Hear now the sober and measured tones of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals commenting on the ERASMUS scheme. In a memorandum it states: While most if not all universities believe that there are clear benefits to be gained from the presence of ERASMUS students in classes and in the student population as a whole, several institutions have drawn attention to the fact that these benefits can be costly, particularly in terms of lost fee income, and additional administrative costs. It is generally considered that the levels of funding provided by such schemes as ERASMUS are inadequate. Many students have suffered financially and there is little equality of treatment throughout the Community with students from some countries receiving less funds than those from other countries. The current imbalance in the number of ERASMUS students coming into the UK and those going from the UK to study elsewhere in the EC has caused particular financial difficulties for UK universities which can only be solved through increased funding and improved language provision for UK students which might persuade more UK students to study abroad". Let us hear again those deadly final words, which might persuade more UK students to study abroad". Why do they need to be persuaded? It is because they do not trust the Government or the European Commission to provide the resources to enable them to study abroad; and who can blame them?

Education Without Frontiers is an excellent report, clearly and powerfully written, positive and—dare I say it?—visionary. The Government should immediately, publicly and enthusiastically adopt all seven of its recommendations and pledge themselves tonight to find the resources necessary to implement them right away. If they do so, we on these Benches will rise up and applaud the Government. That is something that we do not do very frequently. If they do not, if they act half-heartedly, then British students and British businessmen of the future who will be miserably undertrained in European languages will point to this Government and say, as Shakespeare's Caliban says to Prospero in The Tempest, You taught me language; and my profit on't Is, I know how to curse".

6.54 p.m.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord in particular since he ended his speech with a quotation from the play which I know best of all Shakespeare's works because I had to learn it for my school certificate many years ago. I could have given him the quotation.

I wish to reiterate what my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said when he referred to the quality of the report, and the gratitude of the House to the noble Lord for drawing the subject to our attention. It is a brief, concise report written in beautiful English with some good ideas in it. That is more than one can say about many reports that we discuss in this House.

Of all the existing and potentially beneficial opportunities opening up to the United Kingdom as a result of the single market, and in particular the single market in education, the area in which the UK stands to gain and to contribute most is as pioneers and leaders in the field of open and distance learning. I wish to speak on that issue, in particular.

A growing number of our higher education institutions are involved in that field. However, the implications of the report for the Open University are outstanding. For some years I have been an enthusiastic member of its governing body. I wish to tell noble Lords a little about how the Open University is responding to the situation at present.

At paragraph 2.13 on page 16 the report states: Student mobility will increase but it is expensive and not always appropriate. Distance learning is another method whereby national barriers can be surmounted. With the strides taken on information technology, it —that is open and distance learning— is now a major industry". The European Community is aware of the great possibilities which need exploring. As noble Lords will know, the subject was considered during the Portuguese presidency; and during the British presidency the Council of Ministers confirmed its interest and made some proposals for supporting member states in developing that field. Just as in the United Kingdom, so across the Community it is clear that the opportunity for far more people to gain access to a benefit from higher education cannot be achieved —I have to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Morris —by means of conventional higher education institutions alone. That would be very difficult indeed. It is also a fact that demographic change across Europe has brought about a sharp decline in the number of school-leavers going on to higher education. For the first time in the United Kingdom, for example, there are now more mature students than those under 21 years studying at our universities. We are not the only country in which that occurs.

If people's aspirations are to be met and economic life is to flourish, not only in the UK but right across Europe, higher education arrangements will need to cater increasingly for mature students—women returning to work, people with few formal qualifications, those who seek vocational qualifications, those who wish to upgrade or update existing qualifications and professional people who wish to qualify to work in another country.

On all those issues, the Open University has already shown a little of what can be achieved by means of open and distance learning, and open access and flexible education and training course arrangements. Let us take 1992 as an example. A third of the university's intake lacks the formal entrance requirements of most conventional universities. Almost 50 per cent. of its entrants are women. There is considerable potential in those areas.

It is not always recognised that the Open University works with about 7,000 organisations in the United Kingdom. Those range from small and medium-sized businesses to multinationals. It helps them with needs shared by employers all over Europe. It assists them to improve employees' literacy and numeracy, with employment training, management education and training, the upgrading of working skills and in enabling older people to replace the diminishing number of young people entering the workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, will be glad to hear that the Open University is shortly and at last about to embark on language teaching.

In recent years the university has begun to recognise its particular potential as a European as well as a United Kingdom provider. The completion of the single market means that the whole of Europe can now be seen as home territory for the Open University and it has become much easier to export and import open learning materials. There are already nearly 4,000 Open University students based outside the United Kingdom and a network of co-ordinators and 25 small study centres are already in place in mainland Europe and Eire.

Noble Lords have spoken of the ERASMUS programme, which encourages students to move from country to country. It is excellent. Of course it has limitations, partly limitations of cost. So far, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, the number who have been able to take part is small. It is important to note that for less developed countries there is also the problem that mobility can mean a brain drain to countries where expertise is less scarce. One of the many advantages of distance learning is that it enables study without leaving home and without leaving one's job, provided that one has a job.

Encouraged by our Government and the Community's TEMPUS programme, which several noble Lords have mentioned, the Open University is now in a position to begin to respond to the education and training needs of Eastern Europe. The Open Business School, aided by the Know-How Fund, has growing numbers of students in Hungary and Slovakia and is beginning to work with local partners in Russia, Romania and Bulgaria. Another new initiative known as EDEN (European Distance Education Network), a forum for exchange between Eastern and Western Europe of open and distance learning expertise, is also an involvement of the Open University.

The report takes the view that open and distance learning is now a major industry. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the small amount of evidence that I have been able to provide this evening suggests that our United Kingdom Open University will have a lead role in that industry.

7.2 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I rise with great diffidence because I have not put down my name to speak. Had I realised how early the debate would end I would have done so because it is important to mark this excellent and lucid report. I should like to pick up just one theme.

The report concerns education. The constituents of education are knowledge and attitude. We have spoken principally about knowledge this evening but attitude determines what people do with their knowledge. It also to a great extent regulates what knowledge they are prepared to absorb. Children acquire those attitudes very early in their lives, largely at the hands of teachers. What the report has to say about teachers, both in the main body and in Appendix B, is extremely relevant to the extent to which the report will be effective.

The attitude with which we should be concerned this evening is the attitude of the citizens and future citizens of this country to Europe. Among adults that attitude is conditioned by the attitudes of the press, which are almost universally—certainly in all but the most intellectual of newspapers—anti-Europe and anti-foreigner. The motto of the tabloid press of this country could have been coined by one of the characters of Evelyn Waugh, to wit: abroad is a bloody place and all foreigners are fools. One constantly reads stories angled to give that impression. How much did your Lordships learn during the Gulf War of the very gallant action of the French on the Left-wing? Did your Lordships know that at the end of the conflict they were closer to Baghdad than anybody else? I doubt it, because much of our knowledge comes from channels which angle information to make us hostile to our neighbours.

The attitudes of children are formulated by their teachers. The attitudes of the teachers are largely formulated by their training colleges. That is why I hope that my noble friend and his right honourable friends will pay attention to the Commission's Sienna conference, held in 1990, and the Commission's Green Paper which followed in 1991, the executive summary of which appears in Appendix B. On page 49 there is a passage relating to the training of teachers, a little of which bears repetition. It says that it is essential: that a European experience should form part of the professional education of all teachers. The structure of teacher education and other constraints limit the extent to which this need can be met through study abroad schemes within existing programmes and special measures covering the initial and continuing education of teachers are necessary. Means of providing European experience for teachers who cannot avail themselves of a study abroad programme should also be developed". I heartily endorse that line. In that respect distance learning is no substitute. I believe that our teachers need to stay in foreign countries long enough to come to understand their people at more than a superficial and touristic level. Therefore, I echo the support of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for the increase in the length of visits abroad in the ERASMUS scheme. Since anything of that order must be extremely expensive, I wonder whether my noble friend and his right honourable colleagues will consider whether it is possible—and I do not know enough about the subject to know whether it is possible—to tailor the ERASMUS scheme to take in an element of extended trainee teacher placement abroad in European countries. That would mean that the cost would be shared. As it is something that ought to be done in other countries as well, it would be appropriate for the cost to be borne by a Community budget—whether through ERASMUS or some other means—and not a national budget.

I do not wish to speak longer. However, as it relates also to my past experience, I must pause for a moment to endorse what my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley said about training teachers abroad. I have done a certain amount of work in the Far East, particularly in the ASEAN countries. I was struck by the extent to which the countries which sent students in large numbers to this country ordered British machine tools, British pharmaceuticals, British clothing and all the other goods which we have to sell in order to survive.

This is a highly practical report and I hope that we adopt as many of its recommendations as possible.

7.8 p.m.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. As one who is new to the subject I particularly welcome the clarity with which the book we are discussing put forward its arguments so that I could get up to speed quickly with the questions at issue.

I wish to address two main elements: first, the mobility of students within the European Community; and, secondly, the access of students from outside the European Community to British universities and EC universities.

With the single European market we have seen the birth of a group of some 340 million people who operate with virtually free movement of goods, labour, capital and services. That is a remarkable achievement which, if we are to make the most of it, needs an outward-looking population, confident in living and working in countries other than their own.

It seems to me that the education initiatives already under way, together with the proposals contained in the report, would work towards creating the international awareness which would support Britain's interests in the single European market and hence Britain's position as a trading nation.

I hope that the Minister will address some of the proposals put forward in the book to aid educational mobility. I shall touch on them briefly. There is, first, the extension of credit transfers so that students can continue to gain credits while studying in other universities; secondly, a Community-wide code of good practice—I believe that Britain may well have a lot to offer in the elements of good practice; and thirdly—this matter was referred to by several noble Lords—the extension of the ERASMUS programme to a minimum period abroad of six months. I welcome the extension of the programme to the EFTA countries.

The document also highlights the importance of integrating the business community into higher education at a regional level. It is extremely topical to remind the Minister that Maastricht regional matters received a boost with the decision to establish an advisory committee of the regions. Regional organisations, whether made up of businessmen, universities or solely of locally elected representatives, need to exploit the opportunities provided by the possible establishment of that new Community institution.

I turn to access of students from outside the EC to British and EC educational institutions. Here we have a separate set of problems, although the goals which we set ourselves are surely the same; those of generating a greater awareness of the cultures of other peoples. There is a fear that greater student mobility within the European Community will marginalise students from the third world who come to EC institutions. There is also a fear that the implosion of the command economies in eastern Europe will further marginalise students from the third world. Those fears need to be considered.

Conventional wisdom asserts that it is better to educate third world students in their home countries and if possible support their educational institutions. I am pleased to say that I agree with conventional wisdom in this case. But the approach needs to be flexible and the question of resources inevitably arises. The document being considered makes several suggestions for the European Commission to help the countries within the Lomé convention. Perhaps the Minister will address some of those suggestions.

Turning to immigration, again there is a particular problem for students from non-European countries. When applying for visas, students often have to make long journeys to capital cities, embassies and high commissions. That involves them in considerable expense and time. The techniques used by entry clearance officers when interviewing visa applicants are not always even-handed and may lead them to make erroneous assessments of students' intentions. As a result, the students may be refused a visa and, as a result of a simple misunderstanding, may have to go to appeal or simply abandon their plans. They lose their application fee and gain an unfavourable impression of the UK.

Clause 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill threatens further to discourage those who intend to study for a period of six months or less and those who wish to enter without already having arranged a definite place of study, who will lose their right to appeal if the Bill is passed.

Finally, I turn to the subject of language. There seems to be a general consensus that the English-speaking world is truly pathetic when it comes to the subject of speaking foreign languages. I must say that I am as guilty in that as others; though I have a wholly atypical experience, as all my professional life I have worked in the international oil industry and have lived and worked abroad for several years. The business of that industry is conducted solely in English. I believe that it is unique and atypical. The oil industry only buys when it goes abroad. It never sells. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, so eloquently said, if one is buying things, one can always do that in English; if one tries to sell things, it is much more in one's own interest to speak the native tongue. I might say that I am trying to further my own career in that I am taking my first tentative steps in the Russian language.

Once again, I thank the Overseas Students Trust for this document. I find it extremely interesting. I should also like to thank Mr. Martin Kenyon for all the sterling work that he has done for the trust over the years.

7.15 p.m.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has given us this evening to consider the conclusions of the Overseas Students Trust report: Education Without Frontiers. As a former EC commissioner the noble Lord is able to comment from a perspective denied to most noble Lords.

The report from the Overseas Students Trust was its final publication after many years of activity in the service of overseas students' interests. But the mantle of its research activity has been picked up by the London School of Economics. This final publication, the culmination of a series of seminars and a conference which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, chaired, is wholly in keeping with the trust's work over the years.

Before I turn specifically to the report's conclusions and the points raised by noble Lords this evening, it may be helpful if I first reflect in general on this country's record in the developing pattern of international co-operation in higher education.

In 1990–91 a record number of students from abroad—some 84,600—came to this country to study. The number of students from abroad attending United Kingdom universities and colleges has shown a rising trend since the mid-1980s. While the greatest rate of increase has been among students from other EC countries, the numbers from the Commonwealth and non-EC countries are also rising. I must differ from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I do not believe that Clause 10 of the asylum Bill will threaten genuine students. We had that debate in this House quite recently.

That trend is most welcome. The Government value the presence of overseas students in British universities and colleges. As my noble friend Lord Carr said, as well as economic benefits, most importantly they bring academic, social and cultural enrichment to the institution that they join and to the wider community. That the students who come here find a benefit is demonstrated by the increasing popularity of our universities and colleges among overseas students. That is an endorsement of the quality and attractiveness of British education, its flexibility and responsiveness to students' needs.

The Government for their part provide substantial sums for scholarships to assist students from abroad. In 1991–92 this amounted to some £138 million and helped more than 22,000 students. This support is targeted where the need and benefit are greatest: predominantly Commonwealth and developing countries.

With regard to the European Community, the Government value our universities' and colleges' growing links with higher education institutions in other member states. We shall be glad to see those academic connections develop further, with appropriate support from the European Community and from national governments.

During our recent presidency of the Community we promoted conclusions of the Council of Ministers on measures for developing the European dimension in higher education. Conclusions on criteria for actions on open and distance learning were also adopted. The Government will continue to provide a supportive framework for universities and colleges to develop the European dimension, within and outside Community programmes, with due regard for academic freedom, institutional autonomy and the diversity of systems within the Community.

At the level of the Community, the Government will look to build on the success of the existing education programmes. The Government believe that the Commission best adds value in its role as a catalyst. The aim for both the Government and the Commission should be to support universities and colleges in integrating the European dimension into their policy and practice at all levels so that it becomes part and parcel of their culture.

The current Danish presidency has made an interesting suggestion for the development of a European open space in higher education. The aim is to work toward a Community where students can more easily choose their place of study without barriers and obstacles and where a European dimension is combined with respect for the richness and diversity of the national higher education systems and institutions. This would be achieved by co-operation rather than harmonisation. It would involve such features as enhanced links between higher education institutions, co-operation on quality assurance, co-operation on admission requirements, portable student grants, credit transfer, joint degrees and lecturer exchanges. Education without frontiers —to pick up the title of the Overseas Students Trust report—certainly presents many challenging problems to be resolved. But the Government find the philosophy of the open space attractive and we will be working in and at the heart of the Community to secure a positive conclusion.

British higher education is well placed to respond to these challenges. We are a leading participant in the Community education programmes. They will shortly fall due for renewal, and the Commission will bring forward proposals for their future. The Government will seek to ensure that the UK may continue to participate fully.

The Government were quick to implement the first EC general directive on the recognition of higher education diplomas. They are keen to implement the second diplomas directive within a similar time-scale, as it extends coverage to a broad range of regulated occupations. This will make a valuable contribution to freedom of movement within the single European market.

As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, we are pre-eminent in the provision of high quality open and flexible learning. The Open University, which is publicly funded, is the major provider of part-time higher education at a distance and is an international model for such provision. Last November, EC Education Ministers' conclusions establishing criteria for action at Community level in that field were the result of an initiative by this Government. As I said, we look forward to playing a full part, with our European partners, in the further development of open and distance learning at Community level.

Our universities and colleges have a solid record of involvement and achievement in contacts with the other EC countries. They are well placed to rise to the challenges and opportunities of the single market.

Having set the context, I now turn briefly to the report from the trust. The report highlights the need for action to improve language competence across the board. The position is rapidly improving. Through the national curriculum all secondary school pupils will study a modern foreign language until the age of 16. Through a range of measures, including retraining, the supply of modern foreign language teachers is increasing. The Government welcome the response of many further and higher education institutions to the growing demand for foreign language provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked me about primary schools. We do not have comprehensive data about the number of primary schools currently teaching a modern foreign language to some of their pupils. It has been estimated on the basis of data in the 1987 primary schools staffing survey that some 3,500 (15 per cent. to 20 per cent.) of English primary schools were doing so at the time. When all secondary school pupils are learning a language and the national curriculum has had a chance to settle down in primary schools, we shall be able to look at this matter again. In the meantime, a modern foreign language as a compulsory part of the primary curriculum has to be an objective for the longer term.

The report highlights the need to give priority to those already active in the workforce. Retraining is, and continues to be, a priority for the Government. In this year alone some £27 million of earmarked funding was made available to universities and colleges to meet the costs of developing new courses of continuing education.

This country also participates fully in the EC COMETT programme. This promotes the continuing training of workers, involving consortia of universities and companies, making appropriate use of distance learning, so that workers can study in their own time, at their own pace and at a convenient location, which is often either at home or in the workplace.

The report suggests measures to improve the quality and benefits of educational mobility. The Government welcome the involvement of UK universities and colleges in educational mobility both within and outside EC programmes. In many ways our universities' and colleges' provision for students from abroad provides a benchmark for our Community partners. The report suggests a code of practice on the reception of overseas students. The British Council already does that. The report also highlights the importance of credit transfer for mobile students. The Government actively support the wider development of credit transfer both domestically and in the international forum through Community activity acting as a catalyst for contacts between higher education institutions.

Turning to ERASMUS, the Community's main mobility programme, the report recommends improved integration of the study period and lengthening its minimum duration from three to six months; and concentration on selected institutions, with more generous financial assistance to them. In setting the minimum period of study and the range of universities and colleges eligible to participate it is necessary to strike a balance between accessibility and quality. These issues, and the best allocation of the available resources to participating universities and colleges and students, will be at the heart of the forthcoming discussions on the future of the programme.

I understand the view that funding for students going abroad in the ERASMUS programme is inadequate. An evaluation study carried out for the European Commission found that British students with support from the domestic system and an ERASMUS grant on top were relatively well funded compared with students from other countries. However, I take due note of what my noble friend Lord Elton said on that subject.

The report highlights the need to overcome the traditional distance between business and higher education. Within our largely decentralised system, the Government recognise and support the growing links between higher education and industry which can play a vital role in improving this country's overall competitiveness. The COMETT programme brings together universities and industry into mutually beneficial partnerships, and the newly established funding councils are encouraged to forge even closer links with business. Employers throughout business and industry should continue to make their requirements known: they will find the colleges both responsive and flexible.

The report notes the need to take account of developing European Community and European free trade association relations and the changes in central and eastern Europe. The Government share the view that we should be helping to train key personnel for the new democracies in central and eastern Europe. In 1992–93, some £49 million is available through the know-how fund, including funding to support projects designed to transfer administrative, financial and legal skills.

The British Council has a large programme to promote English language training in the region, for which the Government have made available an extra £5 million from 1991–92. The Government's scholarship programme for central and eastern Europe, which includes generous contributions from British industries and universities, amounts to well over £3 million in 1992–93.

The report welcomes the TEMPUS programme and suggests that government assistance to universities might be increased. The Government congratulate universities and higher education colleges on their willingness to help their counterparts in central and eastern Europe and to take in students from there under the TEMPUS programme. It is particularly creditable that universities and colleges have forgone their right to full cost tuition fees and taken a great deal of trouble over the well-being and accommodation of these students.

I turn to the third world. The report's conclusions are mainly directed to the Commission. For the UK Government the training of people in new skills continues to be a priority in all areas of sustainable development. The type and level of appropriate training will vary. After the 1991 conference and world declaration on education for all there is more emphasis being placed on primary and basic education, both by donor countries and recipient governments. However, this does not mean that higher education can or will be neglected.

It is sometimes suggested that the European Community should establish programmes like TEMPUS or ERASMUS for third world countries. However, training is not necessarily best delivered through student mobility. Moreover, community programmes are designed to operate principally within the Community and to bring benefits that are not available from activity by member states individually. There exists a range of valuable bilateral programmes and projects in support of countries outside the EC. It is not clear to the Government how an additional layer of Community activity could add value.

Finally, the report suggests that an awareness campaign is needed. In general, there is a high awareness of EC action programmes; teachers receive training to include themes such as the European dimension in their teaching; many schools are developing innovative joint curriculum projects with partner schools abroad; and there is already a range of guide books describing higher education in the UK, including handbooks compiled by the admissions agencies and materials issued by the institutions themselves. Still more information is available electronically from the education counselling and credit transfer information system, which is capable of expansion to include courses across the EC. With those initiatives we believe that lack of access to information is not an obstacle.

Much of the activity I have described is on the same lines as recommended by the Overseas Students Trust report. The Government agree in broad terms with its conclusions. I am encouraged that all noble Lords who spoke this evening apparently take a similar view. The thought of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, rising up is enough to make any Minister pause for thought. However, the Government have a good record. We are committed. It is important to build on that foundation. The Government will continue to refine our policies in those areas and will contribute to the development of Community policy in co-operation with our EC partners and the Commission. I can assure your Lordships that the points made this evening will inform that process.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I can thank him for the answers to those of my questions which he felt able to answer this evening. May I take it that he will write to me with answers to those questions which he understandably was not in a position to answer on his feet tonight? Once again I apologise for the short notice that I gave him.

Viscount Astor

My Lords, I will answer the questions that I am able to. We do not actually possess the comprehensive data and therefore it may not be possible to answer all the noble Lord's points.

Lord Elton

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, which in theory he has not yet done, perhaps I can ask a question. I thought I heard him say earlier, as is indeed the case, that the budget for ERASMUS ran from 1990 to 1993 at 192 million ecus and is about to be reset for 1994 onwards, and that we will seek to participate in the results of that. Can the Government be a little pro-active in the matter and seek to bring pressure to bear on the Community to increase that budget at the expense of less profitable expenditure in Community money so that we will therefore obtain a larger share of the larger whole?

Viscount Astor

My Lords, as I said, the issues of allocation and resources will be at the heart of our forthcoming discussions on that programme. I can assure my noble friend that we will press as hard as we are able.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth

My Lords, before the noble Viscount finally sits down, perhaps I can say for my part that I am grateful for the positive and authoritative way in which he responded to the recommendations in this excellent report.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.