European Union (Information, etc.) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I confess to a moment’s hesitation before putting my name forward to participate in this debate, despite my strong support for the Bill and for the cause that my noble friend Lord Dykes has long advocated. The reason for this is that there has been a strong agreement—maybe even a consensus—in British politics over the past couple of years that Europe is best not talked about. Whether this is because of the English trait of reticence—just as we are reluctant to talk too much about religion because people feel strongly about religion, perhaps we think that we should not talk too much about Europe because people feel strongly about Europe—I do not know. However, I strongly support the Bill having thought it through. I question why there is this reluctance. There are several reasons and they are worth looking at as a necessary background to the Bill. Let us take one or two inconsistencies. I travel abroad a great deal, in continental Europe, Asia, Africa and elsewhere, largely in support of the English-Speaking Union. Sometimes I have had the opportunity to work with our embassy or stay at the residence and have got to know the ambassadors and the high commissioners quite well. I am struck by the number of British embassies that display the European Union flag as well as our Union flag in front of the embassy or the residence. It is not at all uncommon. So why is this perfectly acceptable abroad but somehow rather difficult with public buildings in this country? I have the same sort of question about the Prime Minister’s speeches on Europe. There have been one or two exceptions in recent years but, by and large, all the Prime Minister’s most pro-European speeches—he makes them, and he can even make them in French—are nearly always made abroad. Why are they made abroad rather than here? If we start to look at the reasons for this reticence, it starts to become obvious. It is rooted in the predicament of the parties. Let us look at that, because it will colour their reaction to the Bill. The Conservatives view Europe as a minefield. If they stray from a most conservative and prudent path, the rather fragile new leadership of liberal conservatism might explode on one of those mines. For that reason, David Cameron has been extremely careful not to address any issues of substance on the European Union because of the damage that it might do to his party or the leverage it is calculated it might give to the UK ostrich party, UKIP. The Government also find Europe difficult. I asked a Question only last week about the five economic tests for the euro. It seemed to me that if Mr Brown was to move from No. 11 to No. 10, and as he owns the five tests, we might gain greater clarity. There might even be a new sense of urgency about the matter. But the Answer I received was somewhat ambiguous and certainly not infused with any sense of urgency. I was told that all this would be looked at in several years’ time. There are even Liberal Democrats who feel that maybe it is better not to talk too much about Europe because it is not always understood by voters. Of course, that simply will not do, for two reasons. First, there is a woeful level of ignorance about Europe and the European Union and the sort of information that my noble friend is advocating should be easily available by computer and in public buildings, libraries and schools. All the polls—MORI, Ipsos, endless Euro-barometers—show the same thing. Unfortunately, we are among the most ignorant about the European Union within the European Union. We are ignorant about how it is governed, how it works, what the institutions do, what its benefits are, and what its problems and challenges are. People really do not know and that makes them extraordinarily vulnerable to malignant journalism. I am afraid that Euro-phobic journalism has become an aspect of British public life. I had an extraordinary experience last month when I was in Bulgaria for the English-Speaking Union. When I got there, the ambassador said, ““We have two or three lectures laid on for you, but there is something much more urgent””. The much more urgent matter was a report in the Sun newspaper that morning that, from 1 January the United Kingdom had to brace itself for an invasion of HIV/AIDS. The evidence for that alarmist story in the Sun was a report from a UK health authority, which said that the United Kingdom faced a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS from immigration, especially illegal immigration—a comma was inserted here, which I know because I looked at the original document— from sub-Saharan Africa. The words ““from sub-Saharan Africa”” had been removed and instead we were to brace ourselves for the invasion of Romanian HIV/AIDS and Bulgarian HIV/AIDS from 1 January. I tell that story because it is symptomatic of something that is now so common in our journalism that we no longer notice it and nobody complains about it. We have all become passive victims of this sort of prejudice. It is deeply shocking and very upsetting, as it has been to public opinion in Romania and Bulgaria. That is what has happened and it is the reason why there is this very strange reticence. The other reason why it will not do is that too much is happening. There is the strange idea that a lot of us seem to have that if we stop thinking about Europe, it will stop moving. Somehow it will vanish, disappear or recede. The Channel will miraculously widen until it is thousands of miles wide, and we can all forget about it. The French shot the fox over the constitution; the Dutch do not want it; and as for the euro thing, the sky did not fall in when we did not join. But there will be a new president in France. There are important signs of economic recovery in Germany. The euro is in a strong competitive position with the dollar. Europe is attracting enormous quantities of investment. Make no mistake that, with a new French president, whoever that is, there will be a renewed attempt to try to establish Franco-German leadership of the European Union. Europe will not stand still simply because we do not want to talk about it. For reasons of our own ignorance, and because of its urgency, we should take this matter very seriously. I shall end on a different, connected thought. People who object to flying the European flag or acknowledging our membership of the European Union, for example, do so because deep down they fear it. They see it as some sort of external menace representing a fundamental threat to our way of life. I see the issue fundamentally differently. I see our membership of the European Union as an aspect of our diversity. The flag is an illustration of that diversity. Coming to the House this afternoon, I was thinking of the identities that I feel that I have. I was born in South Africa. I have worked all my life in London. My home is in Richmond. I am international by instinct and experience. My patriotism, which I feel strongly, is British. I feel European by geography and interest, and English by language. I see none of these identities as contradictory. Churchill had three circles. I would be happy with six or seven. We are perfectly capable of dealing with these identities, but if we deliberately try to mask or hide one—the European one—we distort our own identity. We distort it not only for ourselves; we distort it for our children, which is perhaps more serious. I am concerned about children in our schools. A modern foreign language is no longer a compulsory subject at GCSE. I very much regret that, and I think that the Government regret that decision as well. They will probably reverse it. Also, in the teaching of citizenship in our schools, the European dimension is inadequate. I ask the House to support this, and to start thinking sincerely and seriously about that aspect of our identity in which we are citizens of the European Union. It is by no means the only aspect, but it is one that, were we not to have it, we would be much the poorer, and our lives, and those of our children, would be at much greater risk.