European Union: Information

HL Deb 14 July 2003 vol 651 cc699-715

7. 34 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how much money (a) they and (b) the European Union spend each year in the United Kingdom on information about the European Union, and how these sums of money are split between (i) schools, (ii) universities and other further education establishments, and (iii) elsewhere.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, many people have been concerned about the intrusion into schools, universities, public libraries and the media of what can only be described as one-sided propaganda by the European Union to promote political integration, rather than to provide balanced and factual information about the European Union. The Bruges Group, of which I am an associate member, has conducted research into the matter and has produced a pretty comprehensive brief, which the Minister has seen, showing the extent to which the European Union propaganda machine has penetrated our schools, universities and other institutions. We should be grateful to it for having produced such in-depth research from its own resources.

Let me be clear. There can be no objection to the European Union or the Government providing impartial and unbiased information. What is objectionable—indeed, in some aspects, illegal—is that taxpayers' money should be used to promote European integration, which is a highly sensitive and contentious issue that divides people throughout the European Union, not simply in Britain. It is also objectionable that it should be used to promote one side of the argument about British membership of the euro.

It is little wonder that so many people are worried and outraged by the European Union's use of taxpayers' money to promote European integration, while the same time denigrating, insulting and subverting the nations of Europe and, in the case of the United Kingdom, promoting the abandonment of sterling. The European Union propaganda budget—which is large, about 105 million euros—is used to fund all sorts of organisations: youth organisations, women's groups, youth parliaments, Europe Day, television programmes, press contacts, campaigning in candidate countries for a yes vote—you name it, they do it.

One area of greatest concern is EU propaganda in the classroom, where both European integration and the euro are being promoted. Indeed, it is Commission policy to influence young minds. A paper endorsed by DG 22 welcomed the opportunity to implant the idea of European citizenship by placing the euro in its historic perspective and supports the use of teachers to inform children, so that they can be used as go-betweens to influence older generations to embrace the European ideal and, of course, the European currency.

To achieve its aims, the Commission has produced teaching aids and modules that are completely one-sided and made no attempt to achieve balance. One booklet, entitled Let's Draw Europe Together, designed for older primary school pupils, contains an opening section entitled, "My Country: Europe", implanting the idea in young minds that they are not British but European. The Government protest that they are in favour of a Europe of nation states—not a European superstate—yet, our children are being taught the reverse by the European Union and encouraged to turn their backs on Britain.

There is also the notorious European Union cartoon publication aimed at children called The Raspberry Ice Cream War. That nasty piece of propaganda so outraged British public by its one-sided and inaccurate portrayal of the European Union that it had to be withdrawn after only a handful of copies had been circulated in the United Kingdom. Another example of the misuse of taxpayers' money by the European Union is contained in the video for teachers entitled, Inside Europe. That video concludes by stressing the need for British pupils to think more in terms of Europe and less as an island race. No mention is made in the video of the great achievements of this island race: in science, industry, commerce, religion. culture, democracy at home and spreading it abroad, diplomacy—not to mention Britain's role in saving Europe from the clutches of a motley assortment of vicious dictators.

Every attempt is made by the European Union propaganda machine to make British children ashamed of their history and heritage rather than to he proud of it. I feel sure that I do not have to remind the Minister of Sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which make it illegal to promote political partisanship in the classroom. Section 406 states: The local authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid— (b) the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school", while Section 407 states that pupils shall be, offered a balanced presentation of opposing views". I ask the Minister whether the Government will issue a circular to all school governing bodies and head teachers reminding them of their duty of political impartiality under Sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Act, making it clear that they will take all necessary measures to see that the Act is complied with. Perhaps the Government will also inform the European Commission that some of its materials are complicit in breaking United Kingdom law in relation to political balance, and that it should withdraw any offending material.

I turn now to the universities, where the Commission is setting out to extend its influence, and the promotion of integration through so-called research and development projects and the establishment of university departments of EU integration. In this connection, the Jean Monnet project of establishing chairs devoted entirely to European integration is a major problem in itself. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who has taken a close interest in this subject, will deal with it in some detail when he comes to speak.

However, a host of other research and scholarly organisations are assisted through EU funding and, indeed, by the United Kingdom Government through matching funds over which they have no real control, with the object of promoting the European project and integration, and creating networks to assist in this process. Again, the research, all paid for with taxpayers' money, is often one-sided, although it is represented as being impartial. This ploy has certainly been used in relation to the highly political issue of scrapping the pound in favour of the euro when articles by academics in receipt of EU funding have been represented as coming from impartial sources.

In a short speech it is impossible to list all the examples of that dubious practice, but I intend to place a copy of the Bruges Group research paper in the Libraries of the House of Lords and the House of Commons so that information is made available to all Members of both Houses and their researchers. For those who do not have access to either of the Libraries, the Bruges Group website is www.brugesgroup.com.

The tentacles of the Commission do not stop at schools and universities. They embrace public libraries, the press and the sound and vision media, especially the BBC. A one-sided Goebbelsesque picture is therefore being presented to British society and I ask the Government to take some remedial action. For example, they could require the European Commission to adopt guidelines similar to those of the United Kingdom, to include a commitment to impartiality and objectivity, and to prevent taxpayers' money being used to promote only one side of politically contentious issues.

In the United Kingdom, consideration should also be given to the appointment of a watchdog to monitor the European Commission's propaganda activities. In any event, the Commission should be told that its methods are unacceptable in any democratic society.

It has been a privilege to ask this Question in the House this evening and I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords. I shall listen with particular interest to the reply of the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. In conclusion, I thank all those who have taken the trouble to take part in this debate for their effort, kindness and consideration.

7.46 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for asking this hugely important Unstarred Question, which he introduced in his usual lucid and forceful style. Like him, some of my briefing comes from the Bruges Group which, as the noble Lord has said, is available for noble Lords to read. Also like the noble Lord. I suppose that I should declare some sort of interest in that I am one of the Bruges Group's patrons and occasionally one of its sponsors.

The general picture is very disturbing. There appears to be a wide, complex and well-funded network of EU propaganda at work in the education systems of all EU countries, and this country is no exception. I am aware of course that some noble Lords, and perhaps even the Minister herself, may take exception to my use of the word "propaganda"—which was also used by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—but I fear, as we start examining what is going on, that the word may come to be seen as justified.

Because the subject is so wide, perhaps I may concentrate my few remarks on the Jean Monnet project, which is perhaps the principal mechanism for teaching "European integration issues" in our universities. I should remind your Lordships that I speak as one who spent 10 years on a voluntary basis in the British higher education system, from 1983 to 1992, when I represented commerce on the Council for National Academic Awards. The CNAA, as noble Lords may recall, was the validating and degree-awarding body for what was then the polytechnic sector; it held the Royal Charter for all the polytechnics and was abolished in 1992 when the polytechnics were miraculously and, in my view unwisely, metamorphosed into universities.

I was the honorary treasurer of the CNAA for five years between 1987 to 1992, and this experience gave me an unusual insight into the funding of higher education in general and into the attitudes of academics to such funding. I learnt, for instance, that students were known by senior academics as "units of resource". It took me quite some time to understand what that meant. I also learnt a good deal about academic freedom which, when properly pursued, is such a priceless asset in the culture of any free nation.

I learnt too that academic freedom carries with it the great responsibility to allow a genuine diversity of views to be expressed, especially at university level. Academic freedom does not grant a licence to push one-sided views or to present only one side of a political argument. Academic freedom can survive only in the absence of bias.

Another cherished feature of academic freedom when I was in the CNAA was that universities and polytechnics possessed the sole and unfettered right to appoint their professors and lecturers. The funding of the system was entirely separated from those appointments. I confess that I am a little out of touch with the university sector today, but I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that what I have said about academic freedom still applies today. If it does, the Jean Monnet programme appears to fail the test of academic freedom on both counts. The courses it funds appear to be largely, or even wholly, biased in favour of the European project and all its works, and the Jean Monnet professors have to be approved by the European Commission. If they are not approved, they do not get appointed. So in effect the Commission has the power of appointment.

I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I am relying on government Written Answers. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, answered a Written Question on 29th January 2001 from Lord Shore of Stepney in which she revealed that there were then 102 Jean Monnet Chairs in the United Kingdom: 87 Chairs and 15 Chairs Ad Personam. Also, there were 13 Jean Monnet European Centres of Excellence. The noble Baroness then listed the institutions concerned. She then stated: (i) Projects are financed by the European Commission for the first three years; they must be taught for at least seven years; (ii) The Jean Monnet subsidy is given to the university (not to the professor); approval of choice of professor must be granted by the European Commission; should a professor leave the university, the Commission would need to approve the successor". So it seems fairly clear that one of the central tenets of British academic freedom, if I have understood it correctly, is being breached by the Jean Monnet programme because the Commission appoints the professors or, through the power of veto, can whittle any number of professors down to the one it wants.

What about academic freedom? What about the lack of bias? Here again the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is informative. In answer to the same Written Question she stated: (iv) The majority of Jean Monnet Chairs correspond to the setting up of new teaching activities. A Chair Ad Personam allows Universities to allocate chairs to professors and senior lecturers who already devote 100 per cent of their teaching time to European integration issues, and would not therefore meet the criteria of providing new teaching activities".—[Official Report, 29/1/01; col. WA 28.] That seems clear enough, but what are "European integration issues"? Do the courses which teach European integration put both the case for European integration and the case against it? Or do they put only the case in favour? I hope that the Minister will tell us of some of these courses which really do encourage both sides of the argument, where open and vigorous debate takes place among students, lecturers and professors—along the lines perhaps of the recent debate in your Lordships' House on 27th June and several other occasions. In that case, I hope that the Minister will feel able to name the courses and institutions in question—but I am advised that they will be very much in the minority if, indeed, any exist at all.

Looking beyond these shores, there is no doubt that the Jean Monnet project is a substantial weapon in the EU's attempt to create a European demos, to persuade the peoples of Europe of the benefits of integration under Brussels. I understand that there are now at least 1,500 professors teaching the benefits of European integration to more than 250,000 students across Europe. So the financial investment must be very substantial if these figures are anywhere near accurate.

I have a feeling that this short debate may be the start of a much wider investigation. We can only scratch the surface tonight. For instance, I am told that colossal sums are spent on EU research budgets, mostly in academe, which may sound fair enough until one discerns that the underlying purpose of a substantial part of these funds is again to promote European integration—a kind of common European research policy. Some harrowing details of this aspect are to be found in the Bruges Group document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.

In conclusion, I note that the Question asks what sums are being spent by the Government and the EU on "information about the EU", and of course we look forward with anticipation to the Minister's reply. The trouble is, as far as I can see, that all so-called "information" put out by the Government and the EU about the EU exclusively extols its virtues—which some of us find very hard to identify—and never puts the alternative view. That alternative view is, of course, that the United Kingdom would be very much better off outside the European Union altogether, a view which is clearly held by a large proportion of the British electorate.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I ask the Minister where is the balance in all this, especially in our education system? How much does this propaganda cost? I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply.

7.55 p.m.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. Until 2000 I was in receipt of an EU grant for research as an academic at the University of Sussex. I am also the co-author of what is probably one of the definitive texts on the science and technology policies of the European Union. The answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about how much is spent on science and technology programmes is somewhere in the region of 2 billion a year, now spread between 26 countries because the aspirant countries are coming in as well. So it is quite widely spread and amounts to rather less than 0.1 per cent of the research budgets of most countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, cited the amount spent on information within the European Union as 105 million euros. That is about £70 million. I believe I am right in saying that Surrey County Council spends somewhere in the region of £5 million per year on promotions of one kind or another, ranging from talking about the rambles that take place in Surrey led by the countryside stewards to a great deal of information about various legislation, about schools, about youth groups and so on. If it is to do its job, any governmental organisation has to tell people what job it is doing.

The European Union now covers some 340 million people in 15 countries. Shortly there will he 25 countries in the European Union. It does a great deal. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson, regret this but it funds a large number of schemes in relation to small businesses, regional grants, local regeneration and so on, as well as trying to tell people what it does.

Is this information propaganda, information or advertising? Where is the line to be drawn? That is always a difficult question. Do we want our young people to know about the European Union at all? Is it a legitimate part of their history, current events, citizenship lessons? I would answer a big "yes". It should be a part of their history, of their learning about current affairs, of their learning about citizenship.

Let me illustrate this by recalling my experience at the University of Sussex, which I joined in 1981 as a lecturer/research fellow attached to the science policy research unit. The job I inherited included teaching science students about what was going on in Europe. In the mid-1970s, Sussex introduced a programme called "Science and European Studies" and made a considerable effort to ensure that it was not only science and French or science and German, but science and European studies. Besides studying the language, the students taking this course also had to learn about the cultural, economic and social contexts. The small part I taught them in this one-term course was about the European economy.

It was a challenging task. I had science students who had not taken history even at GCSE. In the 1980s I had to teach them about what was happening in relation to the Single European Act. Then we moved on to the 1990s.

I began with the Industrial Revolution and took the students through the two world wars, the great depression and the ups and downs of the 1950s. I talked to them about unemployment in the 1980s and why we had recessions. I talked to them about the single European Act. It was not focused on the European Union, but if one spoke about Europe in the post-war period one talked about the European Union. We talked about the Monnet project and his vision of building links between countries so that they did not go to war again and that the centuries of war were done away with. Bonds were made of cultural understanding and common economic and social desires so that one did not need to go to war again. We looked at the Soviet Union and the East and West divide. We had the exciting period of the early 1990s when the Soviet empire disintegrated.

As a teacher I found the material available to me from the Commission at that time extremely useful. There were maps which showed the countries that belonged and the enlargement of the European Union. There was material which provided information about the Single European Act and later what the Maastricht Treaty was about and the meaning of the single currency.

But these were supplemented. I hoped that in my own presentations I provided some balance. At the beginning of the 1990s I was strongly against the single European currency. I thought that it was a move too far and that Europe was not ready for it. I argued that case before my students. But they also had material showing the other side and that was right. I believe any self-respecting professional does that. One know that one's task is to present both sides of the question.

At the end of the day I was very proud to present the European project in which we were trying to build a partnership between countries so that they would not go to war again. One of the greatest compliments I received was from a fourth-year student who returned from a year abroad and said to me, "At the time, while I found your lectures interesting, I never really understood why you taught us all that stuff. It was only when I spent my year abroad that I realised how useful it was. I could keep up with my contemporaries. I knew what they were talking about". We called it the ERASMUS programme in which we encouraged our students to spend a year away from their university studies. In our Science in Europe programme Sussex was almost a precursor to it. We had physics, chemistry and biology students studying a language along with science and spending a year abroad.

Likewise, we had very many students come to Sussex from other countries. That is now being extended within the concept of the Bologna programme with the idea of reincarnating the medieval scholar who could move from European university to university and get the best out of them. I very much enjoyed having foreign students come to my classes. They often provided a spark and a catalyst in talking about ideas. Someone from a different culture does provide a degree of broadening to what is being talked about. They very much enjoyed coming to Britain because they had contact with senior members of staff. The concept of the tutorial system is totally alien to most European universities, where there are huge numbers at lectures. Libraries are totally inadequate and our libraries were an absolute joy for these students from abroad.

There were relatively small classes. When I began at Sussex University we had classes of four or five students to talk to, which is far from the Oxbridge notion of two people at a tutorial. In 1981 it was typically four or five people. When I left it was usually in the region of 15 to 17 students to a class. Nevertheless, there is a degree of personal contact even at that level.

I shall never forget the French student from Nantes saying to me, "Madame le professeur, you know that in France they even give separate staircases to the lecturers so that they do not have to rub shoulders with the students". That was the joy of being able to meet and talk with me about the essay she had written—an opportunity that she never got in France. She enjoyed it so much.

We should not forget that one of the great spin-offs, which the science, engineering and medical people tell you time and again, is that when they come to Britain and train on British equipment they return home and buy the same equipment, which is very useful.

What about the reverse, with students going to European universities and whether they are brainwashed? I do not know about that. Regrettably, we do not have nearly as many students going to other universities. There is an imbalance. We have more students coming this way than going to Europe because we do not have the linguistic skills. We should not be happy about that experience.

Having seen the students in their second year, I found that they had matured when they returned to the fourth year. They were a year older and wiser. But there is no doubt that they saw things differently after having been away. They were horrified by many of the universities. I shall never forget the students returning from Italy who had been at Bologna University. Nobody would take care of them. The concept of pastoral care is alien. They had to make do for themselves, but they did and learnt from it.

The students returned broadened in many senses. There had been a complete break. They returned proud of their British heritage, but they recognised their European heritage as well. They saw themselves as European citizens. I was glad that they saw themselves as such.

After centuries of conflict, I for one am of the opinion that it is splendid that our young people see themselves not as enemies of our partner countries in the European Union but as neighbours and friends. They are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggests, ashamed of their national history. They are proud that we as a country have played a part in putting this narrow nationalism aside and promoting instead a spirit of co-operation and collaboration between nations.

8.8 p.m.

Baroness Blotch

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, has made an interesting speech but I believe it has completely missed the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The two noble Lords who initiated this debate are particularly concerned about the European project that produces only one-sided information and uses taxpayers' money to do so. That was the essence of what they said. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, made an interesting speech, but she did not address that particular question.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch have posed many important questions and issues about which there is concern and which I hope the Minister will address when she comes to reply. There is an issue of information versus propaganda; information is one thing, but propaganda is another. A one-sided story about anything is propaganda, and can be regarded as such. The issue of bias versus balance has also been referred to, and again the noble Baroness has to reassure us that balance will prevail.

The two noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch also asked about expenditure and I want to add to their questions. What is the quantum of expenditure? How is it distributed? Who determines the priorities?

Materials used for educational purposes are another issue. There are issues for discussion here. What about the authorship of these materials? What about editorial oversight? Who oversees editorial issues? In much of the materials that I have seen the content appears wholly devoid of the controversial nature of the subject of European union. It is irrefutable that it has a controversial nature. Young people at key stage 4, aged 14 to 16, sixth formers, aged 16 to 19, and indeed adults at university are capable of hearing the full story—all sides, all dimensions of this subject—and of making up their minds. It is patronising in the extreme to expect them to be "educated" by one view of the world from Europe.

I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, will forgive some of us for expressing some disquiet because there is evidence that some in the EU, in key positions, are unequivocal about the aim of spending so much money on education in schools, colleges and universities. The European Union is involved in a long-term project to shift the public's loyalties from the nation state to the European Union's institutions and to underpin the newly emerging European state. I resent being called a "Little Englander", because I am proud of my Britishness, I am proud of England being part of the United Kingdom. Simply because I take a rather healthy view of what is taught in schools, I think we owe it to our young people that bias is not part of that education.

Senior representatives of the European Commission admit that there is a campaign to educate the public about the advantages of EU membership. In an interview on the BBC's "Breakfast with Frost" programme, the former EC President Jacques Santer said: We have as politicians to inform the population and train them in this direction". Train them in this direction? The de Clercq report produced in 1993 said that: European identity must be 'ingrained in people's minds as a 'good product' using marketing techniques and that certain social categories, particularly 'women and youth', should be 'priority target groups'. More controversially, it suggested that newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union … so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause. This is not education. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to propaganda in the classroom. He referred to the publication Let's Draw Europe Together, the opening section of which is entitled "My country: Europe". The euro, which again we know is controversial, is talked about in glowing terms. The other notorious publication is, The Raspberry Ice Cream War, a comic for young people on a peaceful Europe without frontiers. The story involves schoolchildren falling into medieval times. They have to bribe their way past a border guard and explain to the king why the EU is such a wonderful place: Frontiers and barriers everywhere, people fighting wars for the stupidest of reasons, that is exactly what it looks like here, kind of weird. Young readers are also told, We're even going to have the same currency soon as well. It's called the Euro and we won't have to change our money all the time". Thankfully, only a handful of the 75,000 copies were ever distributed in the UK. Public outrage led to the British Government agreeing that, This undoubtedly was an ill-judged and, in part, factually incorrect publication". Does Section 406 of the Education Act 1996 apply to this form of education? It states: The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid… (b) the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school". Section 407 provides that all points of view get an airing, so that pupils, are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views". It is important that we have an answer to that.

Equally worrying is an article in The Times of 1st July 2002 entitled, Economy 'has met Brown's five tests for joining euro'". The article was based upon a study by Professor lain Begg and co-written by Brian Ardy and Dermot Hodson. The study concludes that entering the euro would not be, a costless exercise for the UK but that any negative consequences, will be outweighed by the benefits". With the authority of a leading newspaper, the report had the appearance of an impartial academic treatise. But Professor Begg writes pro-federalist reports for the European Parliament and the European Commission. He was an ex officio member of the University Association for Contemporary European Studies, which promotes a pro-European agenda via university courses. He was also a council member of the Federal Trust, a pro-European body which calls for the creation of a federal European state. Brian Ardy was a Jean Monnet professor. Dr Dermot Hodson was closely linked with the "One Europe or several?" project which is dedicated to producing academic evidence linked with federalisation. Hodson was also a former board member of the ESRC and spoke, along with Professor Begg, at the One Europe conference later in July.

Is the Minister justifying such bias? We all know that the Jean Monnet project is the mechanism for teaching European integration in universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said, the projects involve full-time teaching posts entirely devoted to the teaching of European integration.

I declare an interest too. I have a son in academe who enjoyed a two-year joint European-Japanese scientific experience at Tokyo university. Thankfully, it did not involve any underlying European message. But the Jean Monnet project is entirely separate from the framework funding that is used for the political scientists and is the mechanism for teaching "European Integration in University Studies". It is managed by DG Education and Culture to facilitate, the introduction of European integration studies in universities by means of start-up subsidies". Currently 7,000 universities are involved, with 1,500 professors teaching more than 250,000 students a year.

Another dimension of the European debate is the Convention on the Future of Europe. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that taxpayers' money will not be spent on the promotion of a way forward on the future of Europe, about which the British people will be denied by this Government the opportunity to have their own say via a referendum.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said at the outset of this debate, no one is arguing against impartial information and education in relation to European issues. Co-operation—even collaboration—between professionals and across educational establishments is one thing. However, to use taxpayers' moneys to press a one-sided message—one view of the world—without recognising other legitimately held opinions gives rise to the accusation of deliberate bias and even propaganda. Almost all the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, have happened since Adam was a boy. As I said, my son has enjoyed that kind of collaboration and many, many students have gone to European countries to take sandwich courses from which they have benefited. That is very different from the essence of this debate.

I hope the noble Baroness is able to answer the questions posed in this debate. Control over information versus propaganda, bias versus balance, the interaction and effectiveness of British law dealing with balanced teaching and the effectiveness of Section 406 of the Education Act. As for expenditure, what is the quantum, what is the allocation, what are the priorities and what is its justification?

Finally, I agree with the comment of my noble friend Lord Pearson. Academic freedom survives only when there is a lack of bias and when taxpayers' money is not used to support bias on the part of external bodies as powerful and all-embracing as the European Union.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for initiating this debate.

8.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for giving me the opportunity to speak about moves the Government have made to ensure that schools, universities and other educational establishments have access to impartial—a word upon which we would all agree—information about a range of European and wider international issues, many of which are a central part of the national curriculum. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was good enough to send me the 58 pages of briefing from the Bruges group, much of which has been mentioned this evening. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to understand the background of the debate. Noble Lords may have disagreements in this House but we all stand proud in our heritage in this House when debating issues from positions which may be different but which, nonetheless, are equally valid.

The Government's position is clear. Europe is changing rapidly and we are all living in an increasingly global society. It is important that our people, especially our young people, understand those changes. It is essential that young people are prepared for the world in which they live. That is why we ensured that citizenship within the national curriculum included a module on Europe. Moreover, the need for unbiased information and materials on Europe will increase now that EU enlargement approaches. It is important that young people receive information not simply concerning Europe but on all global issues. We must provide young people with the broadest possible knowledge about world affairs and the value of citizenship; and information on the European Union comprises an essential part of that process.

I give a simple example. All our young people need to understand the workings of the euro if they are to travel within Europe. They need to know what a euro note looks like to ensure that they receive the correct currency and understand how it is used. That would be true of all opportunities for young people to travel.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked me whether I thought a circular to all governing bodies was necessary. I shall come to Section 406, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would expect.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick

My Lords, does the Minister say that we need to be taught in schools about the euro because we travel to euroland? If that is the case, do we need to be taught about the dollar because we also travel to America?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, within the school curriculum young people need to know and understand changes in currencies, and about currencies in general. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that it is important that students know about the big change in currency and that they know what happened when those members of the European Union who chose to do so joined the euro.

There is an issue about whether we describe information as propaganda or propaganda as information. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, dealt well with that issue. But from the briefing I have read, I believe that we stand in slightly different places as regards what is information and what is propaganda. I shall attempt to be clear about my understanding of what is spent, and what it is spent on. I refer to Sections 406 and 407. I hope to address the questions raised by noble Lords. However, should I fail in any respect, I shall write to noble Lords and shall address questions outside your Lordships' House.

The Government are committed to increasing the awareness of European and wider international issues in schools. Teachers, of course, must have the right resources in order to do that. From 1997 until December 2002, the European Commission subsidised—by 360,000 euros (approximately £250,000)—the provision of information to schools and some colleges in the UK through a network of European resource centres. The host organisations, mostly educational authorities but some colleges and a few universities, met the remainder of the costs by providing accommodation and staff resources. In some areas, input from those ERCs appears to have resulted in an increased take-up of EU programme funding. However, as always, the provision was mixed across the UK.

Those centres played an important role in providing information to students and teachers, face-to-face and on the phone, as well as offering a range of materials including, for example, the loan of European Treasure Chests. The Treasure Chest project, with financial assistance from Building Europe Together, was funded through the EU Prince Programme. It was developed in response to demand from teachers for European information resources and activities for use in primary schools, when organising, for example, European activities. Chests contain CD-Roms. books and maps about Europe. The project subsequently extended to the secondary sector. The European Parliament has also funded 12 for the north-west region to the tune of £6,741. There are approximately 65 of those projects in the UK at a cost of £400 each.

In January 2003 the Secretary of State set up a review of the provision of information to schools and colleges in England. As a result of the findings, the Government propose in future to provide information through an enhanced website with clear signposting to sources of information on a wide range of European and international issues. We think that this is the most efficient way forward. Want to build on the support that we are currently providing through a number of organisations who produce materials with a focus on global citizenship, which includes understanding Europe and beyond. This will reach not only schools, but also parents, students, colleges and members of the public and will provide more information to a wider audience.

I firmly believe, as noble Lords would expect, that the teaching of citizenship and democracy is important for all schools, young people and local communities. Global citizenship is an important part of the citizenship national curriculum. Through citizenship education, young people learn about the world as a global community and are able to debate and discuss the political, economic, environmental and social implications of this community, of which they are part. Through citizenship education young people will learn about their role as active members of our global community and how they can make a difference as members of this community. It is essential for young people to learn about the relationships which exist within both the European and international communities.

It is important to contribute to pupils' sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of Britain's diverse society and the local, national, European, Commonwealth and global dimensions of their lives. The citizenship website is devoted to languages and discussions of issues linked with European citizenship, such as human rights, freedom of movement, communications and sustainable development. The Department for Education and Skills provided £2 million between 2000 and 2002 to fund a number of organisations, including the Citizenship Foundation and the Institute for Citizenship, to produce resource materials to support the teaching and learning of global citizenship in schools. This has included specific materials, which focus on global citizenship, of which understanding Europe is a related part. Some £27 million was made available through standards funds arrangements, to support the introduction of citizenship education. That went directly to schools.

Teaching about Europe and Britain's relationship with the European Community is essential in the global community in which we live. It is not designed to encourage particular European views, but helps give young people a broader and more global perspective. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has rightly pointed out, there are safeguards in law—Section 406 of the Education Act 1996—to guard against biased or unbalanced teaching. I agree that teachers are professional in their approach to teaching controversial issues and must, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views. It is for teachers to choose the teaching materials which best meet the needs of their pupils in the classroom—but that should happen within the provisions of Sections 406 and 407.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us the proportion of funding spent on materials to support opposing views?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, I did not hear that.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, can she tell us the proportion of European money, or indeed our national money, which is spent on producing materials to support opposing views to the pro-European view?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, I cannot give an exact figure. I shall try to give the noble Baroness a figure. My presumption is that within the range of materials available to schools it is, as the noble Baroness would acknowledge, for schools to choose those materials that best suit the needs of their pupils. It is also, within the work that is provided, for them to ensure that a range of views is represented. I shall attempt to provide the noble Baroness with something.

It would be surprising if I did not make reference to the importance of language, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also raised. The importance of communication in other languages is increasingly important. Your Lordships have heard me talk many times about the needs that businesses have over their ability to have the opportunities to trade with other partners by taking on people with the capacity for languages. So we are building that capacity to support business in particular—and to give greater opportunities for our young people.

I shall deal with universities. The majority of UK higher education institutions, and all the larger ones, have European or international officers, funded by the individual university. They provide detailed information about the ERASMUS programme mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. An ERASMUS bulletin hoard is located at the University of East Anglia, which receives many e-mails and exchanges from ERASMUS students sharing information about their time spent abroad.

In the UK, ERASMUS is managed by the Socrates-ERASMUS Council, which receives an administrative budget from the DfES and expects, in 2003–04, to spend £196,000 of that on information activities. That includes information about TEMPUS, the EU co-operation scheme for higher education, which provides technical support for higher education institutes to run the ERASMUS programme. It supports the process of HE reform in eligible countries.

European documentation centres are an EU-wide network providing EU information to the academic community. They help universities and research institutes to promote and develop education and research on European integration.

Many noble Lords raised the Jean Monnet project. Its aim is to provide start-up subsidies to facilitate the introduction in universities of studies into the construction of the European Community and its related institutional, legal, political, economic and social developments. There have been 491 chairs since 1990. On that basis, it does not surprise me that the European Union plays a key role. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right: the approval of the choice of chair must be granted by the European Commission. As I say, that does not surprise me.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, does that not go against British academic freedom? It should be the institution that appoints the professor, not some outside funding body with an axe to grind.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, we could debate whether there is an axe to grind, but the way in which the project is set up is very specific. Because of the nature of what the Jean Monnet chairs are designed to do, I do not think there is any strangeness about how it is then proposed that people be appointed. The noble Lord may disagree; that is one of the joys of debate. Within the objectives of the Jean Monnet chairs and what is proposed, my view is that it would make complete sense for there to be a strong role for those involved in that way.

National agencies are responsible for administering the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and youth programmes. They are about disseminating information, but that is not related to publicity about the EU in any shape or form. Rather, it is geared to ensuring that the UK gets the maximum take-up it can from those programmes. We receive funding direct from the department, and grant from the EU; it varies from programme to programme. For completeness, I shall say that the EU contribution to Socrates is 20 per cent, Leonardo 77 per cent and youth 30 per cent. For 2003, estimates within the programme for providing information are £57,000 for schools and further education colleges, £196,000 for higher education students, £92,000 for young people in training, and £52,000 for young people interested in participating in youth activities.

As I said as I began, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for raising this important issue and I have listened to all the contributions and read the briefing with great interest. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that it is important for us to keep all those in our educational establishments informed of current developments in the European Union and the effects that they are likely to have for us all. The provision of impartial information encourages debate about the kind of society we wish to create for ourselves and our children. Once the facts have been placed in the public arena, it is for all of us to consider them and come to our own conclusions. To withhold information would be to the detriment of us all.