Europe: Youth Mobility

Motion to Take Note

13:58:00

Moved by

That this House takes note of the case for a new youth mobility scheme with European countries.

My Lords, youth mobility schemes are a topical subject in this Parliament at the moment. A Private Member’s Bill on this very subject is making its way through the other place, which yesterday held a debate on youth mobility schemes with the EU. In this Chamber, we had a Question on it from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, last week and a Question today from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I am aware that a number of noble Lords have already asked supplementaries and I look forward to the opportunity for them to develop some of those points more fully in this debate. In particular, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moraes. I believe that the need for closer ties with our European neighbours is more pressing now than it has been for some time. There are many reasons for that, but, with the Ukrainian war and increasing geopolitical instability likely to exacerbate existing migration issues, the need for international co-operation is all the more important, especially with those countries that are quite literally our neighbours. I hope this debate will provide an opportunity to think how we might maximise the opportunities for our young people to experience study, work, leisure, sport, music and so on in the wider world beyond our shores. However, building mutual trust and respect with our European allies, both those in the EU and those that are not members, cannot be achieved simply in political fora or via policy decisions only. Indeed, sometimes they can be a source of much wrangling and entrenched resentments, which both led to and were a result of Brexit. That decision has been made, and I hope this debate is not about that. If we want to build trust and mutual understanding, we need a whole host of positive engagements and relationships at all levels in science and research, education, culture and sport, and, critically, opportunities for citizens to live and work together, both here and across mainland Europe. Quite apart from the fact reintroducing youth mobility and cultural exchanges would be expedient for our foreign policy, there is the sheer demand for the restoration of these opportunities for our young people and the broader public. Polling in August 2024 found that 58% of the population think a youth mobility scheme is a good idea. There is a real demand for something like this. There has been a great loss to our young people just at the very time when they should be gaining new experiences and broadening their worldviews, making friends from people of other nations and cultures, with opportunities for travel, education and study abroad with our European partners. Those opportunities have gradually diminished and, where arrangements exist, they are usually more complicated and even more competitive. There are broadly two strands of argument that I intend to cover when it comes to making the case for a new youth mobility scheme with European countries, although I also hope to touch on some of the challenges facing our creative industries, especially touring musicians. I have to confess that I feel rather daunted by the expertise of so many in your Lordships’ House on this topic. I come to this debate not as an expert but as someone who has greatly benefited from rich experiences in other cultures over extended periods and as someone who cares deeply about the opportunities for our young people to travel, learn languages and be exposed to the world and the cultural exchange of ideas and for our creative industries, one of the great success stories of our nation, to thrive. I look to listen and learn about the various challenges and opportunities that exist when it comes to negotiating youth mobility, and to better understand the position of His Majesty’s Government. This Motion was deliberately worded to say “European countries” rather than “the EU” as I hope to avoid us becoming mired in old debates. However, the question of bilateral agreements with the EU versus individual approaches to EU member states is likely to be an integral part of this debate. In spite of that, I hope we can be open-minded as we think about how best to renew the rich landscape of cultural, educational and civic ties that we have shared with mainland Europe in the past, whether that be through rejoining the Erasmus scheme or by agreeing a new youth mobility scheme altogether. Another point I would like to stress is that sometimes people conflate youth mobility schemes with freedom of movement. This has cropped up repeatedly, including in this House recently during Oral Questions. Will the Minister confirm that the Government understand that youth mobility schemes are not the same thing as freedom of movement? Indeed, the proposal for a new youth mobility scheme from the European Commission last year was both age limited and time limited. I appreciate that that scheme was rejected by the previous Government, and indeed the current one, but even had it been accepted, it would not have been a return to free movement. I note that in these parliamentary exchanges His Majesty’s Government frequently point to the Turing scheme as the answer, which offers funding for UK students to go abroad on placements. The focus within this scheme of ensuring that disadvantaged students are able to access this funding is admirable, and I totally support it—indeed, it is appropriate. But still this does not make it a substitute for the Erasmus programme, which was much broader in scope and scale. For example, the Erasmus+ scheme includes specific partnerships and funding streams to promote sport and physical activity. The Turing scheme is also, critically, not an exchange programme. His Majesty’s Government have committed to a reset in relations with the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, led a debate on EU relations last October. The government spokesperson for that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said: “This is about turning the page, reinvigorating alliances and forging new partnerships with our European friends, rather than reopening the divisions of the past”.—[Official Report, 10/10/24; col. 2210.] In that spirit, His Majesty’s Government recently successfully negotiated the UK rejoining the Horizon programme post Brexit. There are positive examples here of how this can be done. The Erasmus scheme does not consist only of EU member states. Norway, for example, is a country which has developed extremely close and collaborative relationships with the EU despite not holding member status. If that is not going to work for us, let us at least propose something new, given that we have turned down the most recent proposal. Like all Members of your Lordships’ House, I am acutely aware that the public purse is under strain and that one of the arguments against Erasmus was the cost, due to more students coming to the UK than UK students going to Europe. I for one am not sure that that is an argument against the Erasmus scheme, but rather the result of our embarrassingly poor foreign language learning and teaching here in the UK. If anything, it is an argument to encourage more of our young people to go abroad to study at European universities and improve their foreign language skills. Speaking a second or even a third language is a vital skill that is only becoming more and more important in our globalised world, yet the number of students and pupils taking language courses continues to decline. I would like to pick up on a few points from the excellent debate on EU relations I mentioned. First, the facilitation of overseas school trips has been complicated by regulations on the UK-EU border post Brexit. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, committed to: “ensuring school visits and other opportunities for exchange” and eradicating “some of the challenges that have arisen”.—[Official Report, 20/1/25; col. 1479.] Can the Minister update the House on whether there has been any progress on that issue? What specific takes are being considered or taken? Secondly, there are challenges facing the creative sector, particularly musicians. This was raised this morning by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, in one of the Oral Questions. This is an issue that first came to my attention through the particular challenges facing choirs that have tried to arrange overseas tours. I understand that DCMS is working closely with representatives from the industry to try and find solutions to the challenges facing the sector after leaving the EU, and this is welcome news. Will His Majesty’s Government, in the short term, do their utmost to secure an EU-UK visa waiver agreement for performing artists and their staff? This is widely supported within the creative industries, and there is precedent for these kinds of agreements with the EU. In the longer term, it is vital that some music performers are able to stay for periods of more than 90 days. It is particularly important for orchestras, choirs and the theatre sector, which generally have longer touring periods. Can the Minister tell us what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking towards negotiating such an agreement with the EU? Finally, the Government have said that they do not want to commit to a specific programme regarding youth mobility in the UK at the moment. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to say much today in the light of future negotiating strategies, and that there are a number of obstacles we are seeking to resolve with the EU—for example, concerning Northern Ireland. However, as they enter the first EU-UK summit, I hope they will bear in mind how much the UK stands to gain from renegotiating a youth mobility scheme, which could be a real win-win and be of mutual benefit, in particular for our young people. Can the Minister confirm when we might expect an update on this issue? I will conclude my opening remarks by reiterating that close ties with our neighbours are essential to UK interests in the current global climate. These have to be underpinned by a mutual understanding of and respect for other nations, cultures, languages and customs if they are going to be sustainable and resilient. There are so many difficulties facing our young people today. The opportunity to travel, live and work abroad has enriched the lives of so many in the past, as well as proving essential to their future success. I hope we will ensure that we are not depriving Britain’s young people of these experiences and those opportunities to thrive.

14:11:00

My Lords, I am honoured to make my maiden speech today in this debate. It is somewhat daunting. The doorkeeper steadied me just now and said, “Every one of the noble Lords in the Chamber today has been in the same place”. I am not sure if that helped. I did notice also that there are noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have had connections with the European Union and who have been MEPs. I want to start my remarks in this maiden speech with some comments on the approach of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans to these mobility schemes. Many noble Lords and Baronesses in this Chamber will have had experience of those reciprocal mobility schemes in their work. In my experience over 20 years, I helped many young constituents with these reciprocal schemes and how to navigate them. Over the years I saw UK students, some from disadvantaged backgrounds who would not otherwise have afforded to access those schemes to study, benefit from Erasmus and other mobility opportunities. Those schemes were not perfect. For example, there should have been more UK take-up between 1987 and when we left in 2020—that is clear. But, very objectively, I saw a lasting benefit for those students in the UK, and I also saw measurable economic benefit and benefit to our academic institutions in the UK. On this vexed point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised about free movement, I would love to hear other opinions on it in this debate, but my understanding was always that the legal base of these reciprocal mobility schemes was never anything to do with free movement because they did not involve settlement and that was the key legal element that would make such schemes “free movement”. These schemes are not free movement; they are reciprocal schemes that generate advantages in all aspects of our lives. I will limit my comments on the debate to that and will now proceed with my maiden speech. I thank your Lordships for the kindness and support I have received since entering the House. I thank my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Smith of Basildon for introducing me. I was only introduced on 16 January, but already I have received so much help and kindness from the remarkable staff in every part of this House. I feel the honour of being in this House very keenly, not least because of my own background. I was a first-generation immigrant to this country. I was born in Aden, but my family had to leave during the Aden Emergency. My family were then split—my mother took us back to her country of origin, India, while my father gained entry to the UK as an overseas student, where he trained as a teacher and became a key worker in Scotland. We were eventually reunited. My parents were part of that generation which, some noble Lords and Baronesses will understand, was a generation of Commonwealth immigrants of the 1960s and 1970s who came to this country to give their children opportunity—and that certainly happened to me. I then grew up in Scotland, first in Dundee and then Stirling, and this of course explains my accent, which has been somewhat commented on. As a new member—I am sure other new noble Lords and Baronesses will have had this experience—I am open to all sorts of advice. The first piece of advice I got on the first day that I came was from a noble Lord, who will remain unnamed, who said, “That’s a very nice soft Scottish accent”. Then he paused and added, “But nobody’s going to hear it if you don’t speak up”. So I immediately raised my volume and I have kept to that volume, hopefully, for noble Lords and Baronesses. I came to London to further my law studies but could only do so because I had the opportunity to work for John Reid, then an MP, and later Paul Boateng, then an MP—now my noble friends Lord Reid of Cardowan and Lord Boateng. I thank them both for the start they gave me. I then stayed in the capital, working at the Trades Union Congress—the noble Lord, Lord Monks, allowed me to work at Congress House and I thank him for that—and, later, as director of JCWI, an independent legal protection NGO in the area of immigration, nationality and asylum law. In some ways, I was returning to the issues that had affected my family, but your Lordships may well recall that, during the period of the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, the UK experienced the most significant refugee arrivals since the war—from the former Yugoslavia, the Kurds, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. Working on these refugee issues individually, and on the policy, was a very formative experience. I did, of course, encounter many colleagues during that JCWI period and I am very honoured that they have come to listen to my maiden speech. In 1999, I had the honour of being elected to the European Parliament for London. I shared this honour for a period with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who was also on my London list. I am really gratified that a number of colleagues who also served in the European Parliament are present in the Chamber. I chaired the Parliament’s justice and home affairs committee, and that legislative committee became enormous. It covered security, migration and the rule of law, but, because the Lisbon treaty gave it the competences and powers, it ended up reaching into data and privacy. As a result, I was able to chair the Facebook inquiry and work on data adequacy agreements, and I started work on the EU AI White Paper before we left the EU in 2020. That brings me to a second reason why I am so happy and honoured to join your Lordships’ House. Over that whole period, I regularly gave evidence to committees of your Lordships’ House. This peaked in 2018—some noble Lords and Baronesses will recognise this—at a time when we were having heated discussions on how we were going to resolve issues post Brexit. How were we going to continue to share security databases such as SIS II or remain involved in Europol? Were we going to achieve data adequacy with the EU and were we going to adopt the European arrest warrant? Some of these issues are still not resolved and are still being considered by the House. My point is that I gave evidence to Lords committees, whether it was the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee or the European Union Scrutiny Committee, as it was, in front of noble Lords who actually understood the issues—I am not making any comparisons with the evidence I gave to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other House, which is a fine committee—and in some cases had actually put the issues together. I will give one example: the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, negotiated the passenger name record security agreements in the EU, and then he was the noble Lord asking me questions about it—which was kind of defeating, but there we go. It does give a sense of how this House can often be incisive and in the moment but can also, in my view, take a longer view of some of the most sensitive issues Parliament has to deal with, in an age when everyone wants instant solutions but when it is sometimes important to think through the most sensitive issues if we possibly can. In conclusion, it has been an honour to make my first speech in your Lordships’ House in this debate and on this subject, and I very much look forward to making contributions in the future.

14:19:00

My Lords, it is an honour and a particular pleasure for me to follow the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Moraes. We share something, inasmuch as we spent our early years in the fine city of Dundee. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is here today. I am not sure that he can say he spent his early years in the city of Dundee, but there we are. My title, and that of my noble friend Lord Moraes, reflect that city’s heritage. For those noble Lords who do not know, although it is not visible, his title is Baron Moraes, of Hawkhill in the City of Dundee. Hawkhill is one of the longest-established thoroughfares in the city and contains much of his alma mater, the University of Dundee. It also contains a lot of hostelries in which he and I—at different times and at different ages, because we were a decade apart in our early years in Dundee—found much pleasure and often had some raucous nights out. As my noble friend said, after he left university he came to London. It is important to note that he is qualified to practise in Scots and English law, which is not something that all that many people accomplish. He has achieved a wide experience over the years. I think it is appropriate that, having come here to act as a humble researcher to two MPs—now the noble Lords, Lord Boateng and Lord Reid of Cardowan—he now enters your Lordships’ House on an equal basis with them. It is very well merited. My noble friend outlined his work, particularly as a national officer with the Trades Union Congress. This is nothing to do with my noble friend, but he mentioned an anecdote about the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, effectively being on two sides of the fence. It reminds me of the time when I was a full-time trade union official. One of my colleagues submitted a claim for pay and conditions to a particular company. Soon after, he joined that company in the department where he had to answer his own claim—which he did not do in full. It was similar to the situation with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. My noble friend Lord Moraes has gained many awards for the work he has carried out—most notably, of course, the OBE. He mentioned having been warmly greeted by many Scottish Members of both Houses in the months since he joined us. It is appropriate to say that not many of them realised his Scottish roots until they heard his dulcet tones. It brings to mind the phrase, “Ye can tak’ the laddie oot of Scotland, but ye cannae tak’ Scotland oot of the laddie”. That is very much the case as far as my noble friend Lord Moraes is concerned. It is a pleasure to have him here. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in looking forward to the many powerful contributions he will make to debates and to the wider work of your Lordships. I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this important debate. As he said in his comprehensive opening speech, this is a topical subject that I sense is beginning to gain some traction. Last year, as we know, the European Commission announced a proposal to open negotiations with the UK on a youth mobility scheme for all EU citizens, which would give 18 to 30 year-olds the opportunity to work or study in the UK for up to four years and offer the equivalent entitlement to young people from the UK. The Commission stated that the proposal would not be a return to free movement because it would be time limited, but it would enable studying, training, working and travelling. However, that proposal did not get very far. Although the previous Government rejected it, it is only fair to say that the EU was insistent that it must apply to all EU member states and not just be on an individual basis. That was the rock on which it foundered at that time. Young people who become involved in exchanges with EU countries would return home at the end of them. That is the purpose of these exchanges: to gain experience of living and working in another country but then, at the end of it, to return home and bring what experience they gain into their working life in this country. That is a straightforward premise and it is disingenuous, to say the least, to portray it as somehow amounting to freedom of movement, as some do. Those who do so are, I believe, fully aware that that is not the case, yet they continue with what is, in effect, a distortion to fan the flames for those who are naive enough to believe that there is some nefarious attempt to reintroduce freedom of movement by the backdoor. Let us be clear: the EU has not approached the UK with a formal proposal regarding a reciprocal youth mobility scheme. Rather, it should be our Government making the approach, because to do so would benefit thousands of young people in the age group characterised as Gen Z. It was rather dispiriting to hear my noble friend say earlier today, during Oral Questions, that the Government have no plans to seek a youth mobility scheme. No doubt she is duty bound to repeat that at the end of this debate, which is regrettable. To maintain such a cautious stance is to dance to the tune of those who want to feed the fears of those willing to buy fake news about some form of weakening of our current position vis-à-vis the European Union. As noble Lords may know, the Prime Minister is meeting EU leaders next week and No. 10 has briefed that it is an opportunity to discuss “enhanced strategic cooperation” with the EU. I suggest that a youth mobility scheme should be part of that and should be less complicated to agree than other areas, such as dismantling trade barriers. Maroš Šefčovič, the European Union’s new trade chief responsible for post-Brexit negotiations, said recently that a pan-European customs area “is something we could consider” as part of a reset in discussions between the UK and the EU. That might enable the UK to join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. That created quite a bit of media stushie—as we say in Scotland—but such an idea is, I believe, non-threatening to the outcome of the 2016 referendum. That is underscored by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is with us today, has effectively given it the green light. I do not think that it is in any way a threat. That may help to open up possibilities for an EU-UK youth mobility scheme but, even it does not, it is not as though youth mobility schemes are in any way unusual for this country. We of course had them when we were part of the EU, as my noble friend Lord Moraes mentioned, and today the UK has a youth mobility visa open to people from 12 different countries, which involves a quota system for each. In 2023, the last year for which figures are available, about 23,000 people came to the UK under these agreements. These youth mobility schemes provide valuable cultural exchange opportunities for Generation Z to experience life in another country for up to two or three years and then return home. Those participating in schemes are able to work if they wish to do so, which provides valuable opportunities that help to prepare them for working life. The schemes involve countries some distance from these shores; there should be an equivalent for countries nearer to home, including countries in the European Union. For the benefit of journalists, some of whom seem to be easily alarmed, these schemes are not designed, nor intended, to be a route for economic growth or to address specific labour shortages. They are about giving young people the best early chances in their life and working life. Recent polling for Best for Britain showed that 59% of UK citizens thought that the Government should prioritise negotiating a reciprocal relationship with the EU for Gen Z, with only 15% disagreeing with that proposal. Although the EU Commission proposal was for any new scheme to involve all member states, as I said earlier, this need not be a deal breaker. EU member states can reach bilateral agreements on labour mobility with non-EU countries, and it is surely much easier and swifter to strike a deal with one country than with the whole EU. The key will be the limits to any such agreement, but that would be the subject of negotiations. Surely, with good will on both sides, a suitable arrangement could be achieved. The Government should review its position on this, develop a policy that stops finding reasons for not doing it and search, together with EU member states, for reasons for doing it. I urge my noble friend to convey this view to fellow Ministers, potentially as a first step towards the change that our young people need and deserve.

14:29:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and it is a particular pleasure to have been able to listen to the rather endearing maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Moraes. I am sure he will bring a lot to this House from his experience. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing and opening this debate. I listened to his speech with a good deal of interest, and he set out the positions very clearly. I was waiting, I confess, for the moment at which he would show how his positions derived from the doctrine of the Church of England or Christianity more broadly, but sadly, that point never came. Nevertheless, I take them as so derived, and he certainly made a very good political case for the changes in rules in our relationship to the EU that he set out. He referred to the reset, and I want to begin by talking a little about the so-called reset, because that is the context in which we are looking at this idea of youth mobility. I confess that I am not completely convinced that we need a reset with the EU. The relationship seems to be working perfectly well for the moment, but I accept that there are many who think differently, and that is why the Government have taken us on the path that we are now on. I think it would be better if the Government could set out their objectives for that reset a bit more clearly. I refer the Minister to the comprehensive document that we set out in February 2020 outlining our approach to the free trade association negotiations. It is a pity, to put it no more strongly, that in a negotiation of this nature we have no real guidance on what the Government are seeking to achieve and why, so I guess we have to define it for ourselves. The way I look at the reset and what may be on the table falls into two categories. The first category is a set of proposals that would be marginal but genuine improvements to the relationship as it now stands. None of them are game-changers, but they are things such as improving the mutual recognition of qualifications procedures, something to do with the arrangements on touring artists—which have been referred to and I am sure will be again—improvements to the conformity assessments, pragmatic relaxation of border processes, e-gates and things such as that. I would put at least some kind of youth mobility agreements into this category, and I will come back to that and explain why. That is one category. The other category of things that might come up in the reset is more troubling from my point of view, and ought to be more troubling from the country’s point of view as well. Those are things that we are led to believe might be on the table, although we are not quite sure. They are issues such as free movement-like arrangements, participation in asylum or migration arrangements of the EU, application of EU law, alignment with EU rules or regulations in any way, ECJ monitoring in an SPS agreement or accepting EU rules on defence procurement. Those are the sorts of things that start to change the FTA-type relationship that we have into a different kind of relationship, one that involves a degree of subordination, acceptance of lawmaking outside the country, that we had hoped we had got away from. Some of these things may be on the table for the Government; we do not know. I hope that if—and it is probably when—they come back with something from these negotiations, they will be honest about whether they have accepted changes to the free trade nature of the relationship and lawmaking outside the country through alignment with EU law. That is a fundamental point. As I have said, youth mobility arrangements can, but do not necessarily, come into that category. They are a prudential issue rather than a problem of principle, at least in certain forms. One has to say that because, after all, the UK has youth mobility agreements with a number of other countries around the world already, so there can be no objection of principle to another such agreement. It all depends on the terms and the degree of control. If we are ever asked to judge whether a youth mobility agreement with the EU is sensible, I would look at four criteria. First, what are the numbers? They are crucial. We all know that there is a huge debate about the number of migrants coming into the country. I will not get into that, but in that context some numbers in a youth mobility scheme would not be material and some definitely would. All our existing agreements have numbers below a cap of 10,000 per year, with the exception of Australia. That is the order of magnitude that we would have to think about in an EU arrangement. The EU’s proposal for such an agreement includes no cap at all; it is simply a criteria-based arrangement under which, in principle, many tens of millions of people would probably be allowed to come to this country. Maybe they would not—I am confident they would not—but it takes only a small proportion to cause a difficulty. Numbers and a cap are really important. The second criterion is fairness and balance. One has to laugh slightly at the nature of the EU’s proposal to us for such a scheme, which is so wildly unbalanced and tilted in its direction that it cannot think we would give it any serious consideration. Can it really be fair that everybody who meets the criteria in the entire European Union is allowed to come to the UK but that UK citizens are allowed to go to only one of the 27 EU countries? It makes no sense for the EU to say both “We can negotiate this only at EU level, because that is the way we do things” and “You can come to only one of our 27 countries, because that is also the way we do things”. We cannot have that. It makes no sense. If it is a UK-EU agreement, it would have to be done on that basis. Thirdly, there can be no importing of EU concepts, by which I mean non-discrimination between UK and EU citizens. It is a big ask in the EU’s recommendation that we should accept that EU visitors under the scheme should not have to pay the NHS surcharge, for example, and that students should not have to pay the same fees as other foreign students. That too is not acceptable in such an arrangement. There should be and is a distinction, which we should maintain, between UK citizens and non-UK citizens. I see no case for assimilating EU citizens into that category. Fourthly and finally, we are clear that this is an EU ask, and the Government have been quite clear that it is not something that they are looking to negotiate particularly, which is good. If we end up agreeing it anyway, what will we get in exchange for making concessions to the EU? How will it come up in the negotiations? There are many things that we ought to want from the European Union in any reordered arrangement, but unfortunately the most important of those, the Northern Ireland arrangements, are already off limits for the time being—more is the pity. However, there are acceptable trades for this. The most obvious area is mobility; one can imagine a high-equilibrium arrangement, with some sort of youth mobility agreement in return for some sort of relaxation of the ESTA-type arrangements, better use of eGates, more pragmatic arrangements for service providers, including tourists, artists and so on. One can see we could find an equilibrium that could make sense and be of benefit for both sides. Whether that kind of thing is on the table, or whether the Government plan to concede more than that, we just do not know; we will have to wait and see. To conclude, I set out these four tests for youth mobility. To be honest, I find it hard, in practice, to imagine that it is possible at the moment to negotiate a youth mobility scheme that would match all four of those things, but you never know. It is wise for the Government to have said they have no plans for such a scheme and it is probably best to stick to that, unless a really good offer is made to us.

14:40:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have heard the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, which was absolutely charming. He will be a welcome addition to this House. If we do not give young people the opportunities that we tore from them when we left the EU, then we will not only deny them all the wonderful broadening of mind and experiences that came from the EU mobility scheme; we will deskill them and reduce our own future, because if we limit young people, we limit ourselves. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this vital debate, and I could not agree more on the harm that is being done to the creative industries, tourism and all that area, and therefore to our country, for which the creative industries are an economic driver. If we could restore to our young people at least some of the opportunities that they had when we were members of the EU, we would give them a whole range of advantages that will remain with them all their lives. Travel not only broadens the mind but gives young people independence and confidence. When you have to navigate a new country on your own, you are forced to step up, to solve problems and become self-reliant. You have to overcome challenges in an unfamiliar environment, and that builds resilience and confidence. Living and working in another country exposes you to different cultures, enables you to understand different perspectives and makes you more open-minded and reasonable—we could sure do with more reasonableness. You learn to be adaptable when you have to work and communicate with people from diverse backgrounds. For some young people, who have limited horizons because of the circumstances of their birth, this is a route to change. Getting away from an environment that is damaging or limiting is vital to life chances. In terms of future prospects, working abroad improves soft skills, such as communication, adaptability and problem-solving. It can give you a competitive edge in the job market when you return. It expands your network: you get to meet people from all over. and you will create all sorts of valuable personal and professional connections. These networks can open doors to future job opportunities and collaboration. Living in another country broadens your perspective on life and your future goals. It challenges your world view and may help you reassess what you want in life. In fact, that is what happened to me: I was hitching round Europe, headed for drama school, when I suddenly realised that I did not want to go to drama school—I wanted to go to art school. I went to art school at Oxford Polytechnic, which is where I led my first political campaign. That is how I ended up, 20 years later, going into politics, leading a campaign and introducing same-sex marriage. You see? It works. You may discover new passions or career paths that you had not considered before. Dealing with different systems, languages and ways of life teaches you to think on your feet; you learn how to adapt to uncertainty, and that really stands you in good stead for the vagaries of your life ahead. Of course, it is also fun. I am sure we all agree that those are good things. Indeed, as has been mentioned, the Government have bilateral agreements for youth exchanges with a number of countries outside the EU, so they obviously agree. But when it comes to the EU, somehow this Labour Government lose their bravery and are found wanting. It is all very well talking about a reset, but you have to be willing to enter the arena and deal. In the other place on 15 January, my colleague, James MacCleary, the Lib Dem MP for Lewes, introduced the Youth Mobility Scheme (EU Countries) Bill to “require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with countries which are members of the European Union”— or are not— “for the purpose of extending the Youth Mobility Scheme to applicants from” the EU “on a reciprocal basis”. He pointed out the immense damage caused by the Brexit deal and the irony of young people now being able to live and work in Japan for two years but not hop across the channel to France. The Government are shouting their mantra about growth right now, but when growth comes from dealing with the EU, somehow it is dismissed, despite the UK facing acute labour shortages in several areas, including the hospitality trade. Young people visiting are just who we need for that industry. So far, the Government’s reset with the EU is just talk. They seem to be afraid that if they get closer to the EU, that will be a threat to their electability, boosting Conservative and Reform votes, and be seen as a return to freedom of movement, which it is not. They run from that, but it is not that. We need to show the EU that we are worth allowing a closer and carefully designed youth mobility scheme. We could make sure that those taking part could come here as a clearly defined category on a tightly controlled time limit, but it would also be a signal that we have rejoined the world of reality and send out a message that we are open for business, for real. I listened to the Chancellor’s “growth, growth, growth” mantra, but everything she said is undermined by these failures to move on the EU mobility scheme, to recognise the market that is Europe on our doorstep, and, indeed, as said by Ed Davey in PMQs yesterday, to enter a customs union, because red tape is killing growth. Additionally, yesterday, my Lib Dem colleague in the other place, Sarah Olney, had a Westminster Hall debate titled: “That this House has considered the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK”. With the constant refrain from Labour now that they want a reset, she pointed out that we need to “forge a new partnership with our European neighbours, one built on co-operation, not confrontation, and moving towards a new comprehensive agreement. A crucial step in that process is rebuilding confidence by agreeing partnerships and associations”— whether it is Erasmus or whatever— “to help restore prosperity and opportunities for British people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/1/25; col. 134WH.] We also need to consider that President Trump is now in the White House. The Government have apparently woken up to the importance of building a closer defence and security agreement with the EU, but the EU, unsurprisingly, wants something in return and is insisting that those agreements run side by side with other arrangements, including a youth mobility scheme. The Guardian, on 25 January, reported on the MRP survey of almost 15,000 people by YouGov for the Best for Britain think tank, which showed that more people in every single constituency in England, Scotland and Wales back closer arrangements with the EU rather than more transatlantic trade with Washington. Of course a youth mobility scheme will involve reciprocal migration obligations, but this is about an investment for the future, growth and well-being, and it will be carefully designed. I understand that the Government are scared of a political backlash, but what is the point of a 400-seat majority at the beginning phase of a Parliament, where brave governance will see people feeling better at the end of five years? Otherwise, I do not think they believe in themselves. Our world is descending into chaos and need right now, so please, Labour, use your power to stop this. The whole point of being in government is power, so please use it. There will need to be administration and cost, but that is what investment is, and investing in our young people is the absolute best investment we can make. It is not a return to free movement. This is a scheme that would not replicate the original youth mobility scheme or—sadly, in my view—restore the full benefits that UK citizens had pre-Brexit, but it would help young people for a short period, unlike the open-ended rights they previously had. It is likely that, unlike the old system, a youth mobility scheme could or would require visas, fees and possible job restrictions, depending on our labour market. Although it would not be as flexible as the scheme we had when we had EU membership, it would be a step towards easing travel and work barriers. We could negotiate the age limits, the length of stay and the job restrictions if they are needed. The Chancellor’s 45-minute speech was a heart-rending plea for growth, growth, growth. She admitted that we need to go further and faster in the pursuit of economic growth, and Liberal Democrats agree with her, but the route to a reset can start with this tiny, open-hearted step into a youth EU mobility scheme. One small step for young people; one giant step towards common sense, growth, security and power. The insanity of refusal and denial must stop.

14:49:00

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, to this House and look forward to his future contributions. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate with its focus on young people and the opportunities of mobility and exchange. Young people had the most to lose but the least voice in the UK’s decision to leave the EU. The opportunities afforded to previous generations to explore and experience life, study and work in countries on our shared continent, and to enjoy the well-evidenced benefits of international and intercultural exchange—of which more later—are no longer available. For them, it will be more difficult and more expensive to build international friendships, networks and partnerships, and we will never know what cultural, social and economic innovations might have been born from collaborations that can no longer take place. There are growing calls on the Government to grasp the opportunity to put this right. The British Chambers of Commerce has described the absence of arrangements for mobility for young people in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement as a “serious omission”, affecting “everything from school trips to summer jobs in both labour markets”. ABTA has asked government to prioritise a youth mobility arrangement, arguing that it would rejuvenate opportunities for young people in the UK and foster growth for our essential businesses. YouGov polling from last year found that 68% of the British public would support a bilateral deal to allow 18-30 year-olds to live, work and study in countries across the entirety of Europe. Over half of those people who voted leave said that they would support such an agreement. Nowhere is the mood music louder than among young people themselves. Last year, the European Economic and Social Committee of the EU published a report highlighting the challenges that young people on both sides of the channel are facing as a result of restricted mobility, and their aspirations for a future relationship between the UK and the EU. Based on extensive consultation among youth organisations and individuals, the report includes direct quotes from young people which express their deep sense of loss and a perception that the current relationship is broken, fractured and closed. The EESC report makes a series of recommendations, echoing those from the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House and of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, of which I am a member. There is “universal and unanimous support” for the full reintegration of the UK into Erasmus+ and shared disappointment in the replacement Turing Scheme, with its limited offer and funding and no inward mobility—a scheme assessed as inadequate in the Government’s own analysis. It is worth noting, as we have already heard, that Erasmus+ encompasses far more than funding for university students to undertake international placements. It is a vehicle for youth voluntary exchanges and a vital financial lifeline for thousands of young activist networks, organisations and youth councils. It has a proud 38-year record of delivering for young people and organisations across Europe, with a particular emphasis on marginalised groups. Post-Brexit, without access to Erasmus+, dozens of the UK’s youth charities have gone under, including the British Youth Council, which entered insolvency in April 2024, unable to meet ongoing financial challenges without the support that had come from Erasmus+. This House has often discussed the loss of Erasmus+, but less attention has been paid to the impact of our leaving Creative Europe, the EU’s flagship programme to support the cultural, creative and audio-visual sectors. Between 2014 and 2019, Creative Europe delivered £100 million in funding to UK projects. The UK was the third most successful country in the number of funded projects over that period, with a particular impact on creative and cultural projects in the nations and regions. The Welsh Senedd’s 2024 Culture Shock report calls for government to prioritise association with Creative Europe at the forthcoming review of the TCA. Rejoining Erasmus+ and Creative Europe would allow young people to apply for joint funding for projects that enable exchange at home and abroad. This would offset at least some of the damage of the current arrangement, helping today’s young people build and nurture the intercultural networks that underpin their development and careers and that inspire innovative new ideas. It would be a positive step on the journey towards a comprehensive and reciprocal scheme of the kind we are debating today. The idea of a scheme that allows young people to live, work and study in the EU and the UK for a limited period is not a radically new concept. Indeed, according to the Library’s research, the UK already has such agreements in place with 13 countries around the world. Clearly, we believe in the personal, professional and social benefits that accrue from international and intercultural communication, and the increased understanding between nations that grows from this kind of exchange. However, the overwhelming majority of the exchange programmes already in place can be accessed only with a significant and costly long-haul flight, which likely puts them out of reach for many young people. Surely the Minister would agree that enabling exchange between the EU and the UK makes sense, not just because our histories are interwoven but because the relative ease and lower cost of access makes the benefits of exchange available to a wider and more diverse range of young people. As we have heard, the introduction of a reciprocal arrangement would have significant benefits for the creative and cultural sector, which has been so severely impacted by an agreement that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, himself said, in March 2022, was “too purist” on youth mobility and touring artists, was “making life difficult on both sides”, and should be reviewed. The 90 in 180 days agreement, to which this and the last Government so often refer, does not address a fundamental issue, in that it does not permit artists to undertake work that is paid. The hardest hit by all this are the younger, early-career artists, working on low profit margins and with limited administrative support. The bureaucracy involved in securing visas and permits for sets, costumes, instruments and merchandise is not only time-consuming but the cost is often prohibitive. Artists can no longer take up the last-minute engagements that have so often fast-tracked their careers. In some cases, visa restrictions disproportionately impact younger artists, because the waivers exempt only established artists or require minimum income thresholds, which of course younger artists cannot meet. A youth mobility scheme would not solve all the challenges for post-Brexit touring, but it could significantly improve the situation for early-career artists, who are more likely to be travelling alone or in splitter vans, to be carrying their own costumes and instruments, and to be transporting merchandise using the “merchandise in baggage” rules. One of the most striking issues highlighted in the EESC report is the absence of institutional structures for youth engagement between the UK and the EU and in the groups that oversee and advise on the implementation of the TCA. I hope that this omission will be addressed at the review point next year. Listening to young people and structuring their voices into the processes by which decisions are reached is more important now than it has ever been. Generational divides have always existed, but some of the factors that differentiate young people today from the decision-making generation are particularly profound. The climate and housing crises may well be unparalleled sources of intergenerational tension, as is the burden of future debt. Brains that have been shaped, quite literally, by the printing press technology of Johannes Gutenberg have to work hard to imagine how a generation whose brains are shaped by the technology of Gates—the “click to read more” technology—thinks, experiences and communicates. Therefore, it is all the more important to involve young people in policy development and to structure their voices into discussions and decisions about the longer term. I welcome this Government’s commitment to reset our relationship with the EU. I hope that this includes fresh thinking, informed by the voices of young people, on intercultural and international exchange mechanisms, including Erasmus+ and Creative Europe, and an agreement that opens up the rich experience of living, working and studying across our shared continent. A youth mobility agreement would not be a return to free movement. These schemes can be tailored to national interests and limited in terms of numbers or duration. But it would harness the transformative potential of youth connections in unlocking a closer bilateral relationship between the EU and the UK based on good will and intercultural understanding. This is not just about restoring opportunities for individuals. A systematic review published last year determined that intercultural competence is one of the main requirements for success in today’s globalised world, and its absence a crucial factor in failure. The review found that these skills of cultural awareness, intercultural sensitivity, language proficiency, empathy and flexibility are best developed through studying and staying in different cultural environments and participating in cultural programmes across geographic borders. This is the real win of exchange and mobility with our nearest neighbour and our key trading partner: not just a future generation enriched by the experience of studying, living and working in different environments and among different peoples, but a future generation better equipped to help ensure the future success and prosperity of the UK.

15:00:00

My Lords, first, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this matter before us today. My contribution will be to strongly support a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and European countries. But, before putting forward my arguments for this, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech—and thank him, actually, for mentioning me. The noble Lord and I go back quite a long way, if I might use that phrase. We first encountered each other, I think, when I was the UK Immigration Minister—never an easy job at the best of times, as we all know—and the noble Lord was the head of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. We had some exchanges at that time and I am pleased to say that, despite our slightly different backgrounds and responsibilities, we had a positive relationship. Later, when we were both MEPs, the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, was, as he said, the chair of the LIBE Committee—the justice committee —of the European Parliament, with me as the lead Conservative. I can state categorically that, by working together, especially on security issues, we were able to demonstrate the importance of the UK in protecting not only our own citizens but all Europeans and the wider world. It was a most productive relationship. Sadly, of course, Brexit removed those activities, but I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, is now here with us. In examining the Government’s stated wish to restore or reset our relationship with the EU, the matter we are debating today is of great importance, not only for our young people but for the economic, cultural and diplomatic ties that bind us to our closest neighbours. Since the UK left the EU, young people on both sides of the channel have faced a stark reality: opportunities that were once taken for granted have disappeared. The ability to study, work and gain international experience in each other’s countries has been significantly diminished. This is not merely an inconvenience: it is a loss of potential, a restriction of opportunity and a barrier to future prosperity. We have long argued that expanding youth mobility schemes to more countries—particularly those geographically and economically close to the UK—would be beneficial. Sectors with fluid labour markets, such as hospitality, have relied on the participation of young workers for years. Of course, youth mobility schemes are not new, as other noble Lords have mentioned. The UK already has agreements with countries such as Australia, Canada and Japan, allowing young people to live and work in those nations for a defined period. These agreements are reciprocal, well regulated and mutually beneficial. There is absolutely no logical reason why a similar scheme cannot be agreed with Europe, especially with the EU itself. Of course, the specifics will need to be negotiated to ensure that we get a deal that is in our interests, but that is very much achievable. The economic case is compelling. This is an initiative welcomed across business communities and across all sectors, and widely seen by labour organisations and the third sector as a serious omission from our current relationships. European interns have often been invaluable in helping British small and medium-sized companies expand into new European markets. The long-standing practice among UK lawyers—I speak as a lawyer myself— of spending time in an EU member state during training or after qualification has been crucial for professional development and career success. However, this pathway is no longer accessible to those lawyers employed by firms without EU offices, as they cannot take advantage of the intra-corporate transfer provisions contained within the TCA. Similarly, for example, the horticulture sector has for many years sent students and young people to the Netherlands in the summer, while taking European students here—a system that has been fundamental to how they do business. Polling evidence also shows very strong public support for a youth mobility scheme. In August 2024, research by More in Common found that 58% of people think that such a scheme is a good idea, compared with only 10% who oppose it. Breaking that down, 71% of those who voted Labour in the July general election supported the scheme, as well as a majority—56%—of Conservative voters. I should not mention it, but even among Reform UK voters, support stood at 44%, with only 27% against. Those numbers demonstrate a broad consensus in favour of restoring structured opportunities for young people. A structured mobility scheme with the EU would enhance the UK’s soft power. Our influence in Europe and beyond is built not only on economic and security relationships—important as they are—but on cultural and personal connections. When young people live and work abroad, they form lasting relationships, break down barriers and build bridges—both literally and figuratively, I think. These connections contribute to Britain’s standing in the world, making us a more attractive and engaged partner on the international stage. Some are arguing that concerns about immigration should deter us from pursuing such a scheme. One or two speakers have done that. As I have said, I speak as a former Immigration Minister and there is a clear misunderstanding of the proposals. A youth mobility agreement is not unrestricted migration; it is a temporary reciprocal arrangement that benefits both sides. Those coming into the UK must have financial means to support themselves and it does not offer a path to citizenship. It is not—I repeat, not—a return to free movement. We know that the EU has expressed its openness to having an agreement. To a large extent, the ball is now in the UK’s court. If we fail to engage constructively, we risk further diminishing our ties with our closest allies and depriving future generations of the opportunities that all their predecessors enjoyed. The benefits of youth mobility are clear, but we must place this in the wider context of our relationship with Europe. This is not just good for young people; it is good for the UK and good for Europe. The EU has already put an offer on the table and our Government should now engage, negotiate and reach a fair and beneficial agreement, without further delay. By doing so, we can secure meaningful gains across multiple sectors, foster a closer and more co-operative relationship with our European neighbours and, in doing so, enhance our collective security and economic prosperity. In conclusion, this is an opportunity that we really must seize. I urge the Government to act in the best interests of our young people and our country.

15:08:00

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech. Our paths crossed a little over 10 years ago when he, as a Member of the European Parliament, and I, as the chair of a committee of this House responsible for justice and home affairs, were doing our best to mitigate the somewhat impetuous effort of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to remove the UK from all justice and home affairs legislation. I am glad to say that we were successful then, although we were thwarted by the Brexit process. I welcome the noble Lord to this House, where I am sure he will make a major contribution. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans is also to be congratulated and thanked for securing this timely debate on the potential for a UK-EU mobility partnership as part of the Government’s reset of our post-Brexit relationship with the EU, and for his most helpful and illuminating introduction to the debate. This debate is all the more necessary as it provides an opportunity to clear away some of the quantities of disinformation that have swirled around the subject since the idea surfaced in Brussels early last summer, well ahead of the July election here. To clear up one of those bits of disinformation, the idea has not yet been put to the UK by the EU in any formal sense. It was an idea that the Commission raised with the EU member states, and to which they got a reasonably positive response, but it was not put to us—except by journalists—because there are no current negotiations going on between the UK and the EU, so there was no need to respond to it, positively or negatively. The then Labour Opposition chose to react to it—quite unnecessarily, I have to say—in a way that was interpreted more negatively than was justified. The second piece of disinformation is that the concept of mobility partnerships for particular age groups and professions is not understood as being as widespread as it is around the world. In no case does it amount to full free movement, and it is often numerically capped. So far as the EU is concerned, the Commissioner who will now be handling the matter in the new Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, made clear last week that any UK-EU scheme would not—I repeat “not”—amount to free movement. Having got rid of those two main pieces of disinformation, it surely makes sense for the Government to consider carefully the pros and cons of such a mobility partnership. I hope the Minister will say that they will now do that, so that we are in a position to engage constructively if and when the idea is raised with us in the reset negotiations. So far as your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee is concerned, the idea was studied in the process of preparing the report we made to the Government and the House in April 2023. I was serving as a member of the committee at the time, and we concluded that the idea made a lot of sense and would be in the UK’s interest. When the then Government reacted to our conclusion, they did not agree, but they were a different Government. Our report, which was subscribed to by a committee of all parties and none, is surely therefore worth looking at again now. Since the time of that report by your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee, I would suggest that the case for giving positive consideration to a UK-EU mobility partnership has become much more compelling. Following our departure from the EU almost five years ago to the day, the opportunities for those in this age bracket to be likely to be covered by any mobility partnership have shrunk dramatically on both sides of the channel. Brexit has deprived them of many of the openings they had when we were a member of the EU. School visits have virtually collapsed; access to the ever more successful Erasmus scheme, to which other non-EU countries belong, has lapsed; knowledge of other European languages in this country has continued to slide; the activities of performing artists of all kinds have been hit hard; and young professionals in a whole range of specialisations have ceased to have easy access to jobs on both sides of the channel. That is a pretty sorry litany, and I could go on. Moreover, the sign of interest in a mobility partnership with us, which we have heard from Brussels, means that there is a good chance that such an approach would fulfil one crucial characteristic for success in negotiation: mutual benefit to both sides. The time has surely come to stop sucking our teeth, to stop repeating constantly the mantra “We have no plans for a mobility partnership”, and to give the whole idea a thorough and open-minded consideration. After all, we might discover some help there for the Government’s top priority of stimulating growth. Finally, on a more general point, it does not make sense and is not in our national interest for us to debate every idea for improving the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU as if it was a rerun of the damagingly divisive debates we had between 2016 and 2019 over the principle of our EU membership. The debate we are having today is not part of that and should not be treated as if it was.

15:15:00

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate. It is not the first time and it will not be the last that we debate our relations with the EU and I thank him for making that possible. I also welcome my friend the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, whom I have known for 26 years. He served in the European Parliament with me and had a distinguished career there, not only as deputy leader of the Labour group but also, significantly, as chair of the civil liberties committee of Parliament where he made a memorable contribution. The secret of success in the European Parliament is to get agreement across the chamber and the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, was excellent at that and well respected as a figure who could unify the chamber. He is very welcome here. I know he will make many contributions. I am not giving anything away if I tell this House that I am an unrepentant supporter of the European Union. I voted yes in the referendum. Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I headed up the Cambridge for Europe campaign and I have never regretted a single statement or anything that we did during that campaign. As has been said, this proposal is very modest. It is not going back into the EU. It is far more modest than anything I would personally be happy with. We cannot keep on hearing that the Labour Government have no plans. The Labour Government have a large majority. They have a population, particularly the young, who want a closer relationship with Europe, so they had better find some plans unless they want to alienate all the youth vote in Britain—that is, the youth vote that is not alienated from the Conservative Party, which does not seem to have many plans either. Maybe my noble friend Lord Effingham will correct me on that and tell me that we are going to have a Damascene conversion, which should please the right reverend Prelate. I was a European federalist. In 1981, when the Labour Opposition were campaigning to leave the European Union, which was being magnificently defended by Baroness Thatcher, I joined a small group in Brussels that set up the Crocodile Club to campaign for a federal Europe. The Conservative representative on that group was the French passport-holding Mr Johnson —Mr Stanley Johnson, with whom I enjoyed many meetings and dinners when we planned what we would like to have seen as Europe, which was a Europe that was very similar in its structure to the United States. I say to this Government and to my friends in opposition on this side of the House that, if people want to come to Britain, is not that the same as them wanting to go to Texas or California—a sign of a country that is in demand, where they want to contribute? I certainly agree that we have to sort out the welfare bill, because we do not want welfare tourism, but the fact that people want to come and work and contribute to the wealth of Britain is surely something we should be rejoicing in. We should be pleased about it, not be a dog in the manger and say that we do not want to see them. My view is that moving from Spain to the UK should be seen as little different from moving from, say, Maine to Minnesota. I always believed that all citizens of the European Union should have the vote where they live. The idea, which our party and Labour have, that we should enfranchise people who have been outside Britain for so long that they have probably forgotten the language is not the way forward. The way forward is that a European citizen in the European Union should have a vote where they live. If noble Lords look back a few years, they will see that I moved a Private Member’s Bill to that very effect. I can say, not unsurprisingly, that the Bill got absolutely nowhere, but there is a lot to be said for it. If we are going to look to the future, as a relatively small population grouping in a not huge geographical part of the world, then we have to work together. We cannot have a constant dog-in-the-manger attitude to our nearest colleagues. We have to get back to the spirit of my good friend, the late Arthur Cockfield, who designed the Single European Act so that we could work and trade together, and of Mrs Thatcher—before she went bonkers—who was fully in support of us having a Europe in which it was easier for us to move around and trade. We have all seen the ABTA report which shows how far the ability of British citizens to work in Europe has declined: 69%, it said in the briefing that it sent me. We have seen the YouGov report from April, which said that 68% support a youth mobility deal. We have heard that youth mobility, sadly, does not involve free movement; personally, I wish it did, but the fact that it does not surely makes it even harder for the major political parties to decide that they have no plans to do anything. As I have said before in this House, if we want to represent the future of Britain, we have to change our attitude to the European Union. We have to move on. The majority that voted to leave have been cremated; they are not there any more. We have to start looking positively at Europe. One of the saddest things in my 25 years in the European Parliament was, I am sorry to say, dealing with often Labour Ministers who quoted the Daily Mail to me. I well recall a meeting with Geoff Hoon, who was a Europe Minister—one of the 18 that we ran through in our 17 years. He lasted about six months. I went to see him because I wanted Britain to take up money from Europe to publicise the EU through our libraries, with documentation and material supplied by Europe. Geoff said to me, “I’m sorry, Richard, the Daily Mail wouldn’t stand for it”. Yesterday, my wife drew my attention to the fact that the Labour Government now wish to invoke the spirit of Mrs Thatcher. Goodness knows where we go from here, but that is where we are. If we are going to move forward and be the Government of this country again, on this side and that side, we have to start doing what the younger voters in this country want. This is not a country of old men and women any more; it is a country in which we have to deliver for the up-and-coming generation who are going to create the wealth of the country. I have said many times when I have talked to students through our schools’ programme that I came from a golden generation. We grew up in peace, with growth, and we are fantastically better off than we were when I was a child. If we are to deliver that for the next generation, it will require a fundamental reset with Europe—one that goes much further than either the Government or the Opposition are talking about. And noble Lords will notice that there is one party I have not mentioned in that sentence.

15:26:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the pro-European words he has just shared with us. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing this important debate to this House and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech. He introduced today’s debate with such passion, and it was important to hear his own experiences of how mobility schemes have reached out to those from underprivileged backgrounds. That was an important note. I look forward to hearing more of his contributions and say croeso, welcome, to the noble Lord. As the youngest Member of this House, I take a special interest in proposals that will offer young people more opportunities. Under-30s, who such schemes are aimed at, are a generation which has been most affected by the loss of work opportunities post-Brexit. This has been coupled with the isolating experiences that the Covid pandemic had on youth. Along with being locked out of the housing market with low wages, hopes are dashed for many in my generation. His Majesty’s Government have an opportunity to change this with an act of good will towards young people, establishing a new youth mobility scheme with the EU. This is not just about young people but about the other benefits to the economy and society, as has been shared by many noble Lords today. We are not alone in this view. A poll conducted by YouGov for the European Council on Foreign Relations found that almost seven in 10 Britons, including a 55% majority of former pro-Brexit voters, would support a scheme that would allow 200,000 18 to 40 year-olds from the UK and the EU to travel, study and work freely in each other’s countries for up to four years. I would like to talk about the broader context that this debate offers. Yesterday, Wales’s biggest university, Cardiff University, announced plans to cut 400 jobs. The proposals include completely axing courses such as nursing, music, ancient history and modern languages. Other schools will be merged to save money. I fear that Cardiff University will not be the last to make such an announcement. After Brexit, the UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus and continuous cuts to fields such as culture and the arts mean that current modern languages students in particular undoubtedly get a markedly different experience from other alumni. However, language learning is no less important today than at any point in the past. It could be argued that mutual understanding is more crucial in today’s world than ever before. The vice-chancellor has blamed these difficult decisions on the precarious financial position of many universities, particularly in the context of declining international student applications and increasing cost pressures—these issues are tied closely together. Cardiff University is not alone in this struggle; many universities across the UK have been warning of a crisis looming. In the case of universities in Wales, the Welsh Government and His Majesty’s Government have a lot to answer for. The recent decision on national insurance has made the situation worse. Before I conclude, I will rebut claims that this would be a return to free movement. This is not the case for the youth mobility scheme already established with 12 non-EU countries, because it would be time limited and require people to meet certain conditions before and during their stay. His Majesty’s Government could set the quota and the length of stay. When the UK was a member state, UK nationals had the right to move and reside freely within the EU; that is not the case for this scheme. Although it has been reported that the EU has been forthcoming with proposals for a mobility scheme with the UK, I strongly urge His Majesty’s Government to show leadership and proactively suggest their own proposal. As part of designing a proposal—today we have had several suggestions for what that could include—I would also make the case for expanding the age limit. Many people in their 30s and in their early careers would enjoy and benefit from an opportunity to work, study and live abroad. As the Prime Minister is set to meet EU leaders in Brussels on Monday, I hope that a youth mobility scheme is on the table and is progressed. I also hope that the future of our higher education institutions is considered as part of His Majesty’s Government’s reset with the EU. I will close with a couple of questions for the Minister directly. Can she confirm whether a youth mobility scheme will be discussed with EU leaders next week? Furthermore, can she share with us what consultation His Majesty’s Government are undertaking or plan to undertake with young people regarding the UK’s reset with the EU?

15:32:00

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate; it is clearly a popular subject. There have been Questions and other debates on it, but in this Chamber people have managed to provide many different answers to a similar question. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his interesting maiden speech. It showed humour and was, I think, a view of what we may come to expect from him in the future—insight and modesty—but he knows what he is talking about. I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. I am grateful to her for her advice on how to pronounce Llanfaes—so if I get it wrong, it is not my fault. Her point about widening the age range is one that I think many of us in this Chamber would take to heart. It is probably not quite the age she has in mind, but raising it at least to the mid-40s would be reasonable because, apart from anything else, it seems that the current younger generation seem to grow up rather more slowly than our generation had to. It may have escaped the notice of some here, but earlier this month the Government launched the soft power council; it was so soft that nobody took much notice. Nevertheless, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Lisa Nandy from DCMS got together to announce this new council because they believe that soft power is the one thing that is going to be incredibly important in making Britain great again. Of course, they are right. As David Lammy put it: “Soft power is fundamental to the UK’s impact and reputation around the world … But we have not taken a sufficiently strategic approach … Harnessing soft power effectively can help to build relationships, deepen trust, enhance our security and drive”— you guessed it—“economic growth”. Well, nobody is going to disagree with that. We all agree that soft power is delivered in massive quantities by youth mobility. Getting young people to see and experience this country, and getting our young people to experience life abroad, is all about delivering soft power. Tomorrow’s young people include tomorrow’s leaders. Previous leaders of the States, for instance, have been students in the UK and have reflected favourably on that experience once in office. So a youth mobility scheme should be an important part of any soft power initiative. Surely that will be a contributor to the growth that we are in search of and that is proving so elusive. Yesterday, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she wants a Government who remove barriers to growth “one by one”. She said she is intent on making it “easier for businesses to trade”. What happened just five years ago has not made it easier for businesses to trade. The right reverend Prelate said he hoped that in this debate we would not rehearse the arguments over Brexit, and I think we have all tried not to disappoint him. The latest poll from YouGov, published this week, shows that just 30% of people think that we were right to leave the EU—but let us not debate that now. The UK is not going back into the EU, the single market or the customs union; we have heard that often enough to actually believe it. Instead, we are resetting the relationship—and we need to. In the interests of growth, we certainly need to reset that relationship as quickly as possible. Exports by small businesses are down by 30% since Brexit. Some 20,000 small businesses have stopped exporting altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Frost—I see him returning to his place—sees no need for this reset. He told us that he believes the relationship is working well, even though those small firms have stopped exporting altogether. The noble Lord was at least a little more positive—just a little—on the subject of a youth mobility scheme. I confess that I share his view that the EU’s original proposal that we read about had flaws—not least the idea that we should be able to send people from the UK to only one EU country but then they would have Schengen rights to travel, which limits things somewhat and seems a little unnecessary. Nevertheless, it is a serious starting point for negotiations that the EU wanted to open. The majority of people in this country would be perfectly prepared to open those negotiations, and they would want them to lead somewhere. In this debate we have heard much about the advantages for individuals of the opportunity to live and work abroad. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, would not even be in this Chamber, she tells us, had it not been for taking advantage of that opportunity. The advantage is not just in soft power but in young workers coming to the UK. Our young people get experience that is useful to bring back here. The hospitality industry and ABTA have been very clear that, without that experience, the pipeline of people to work in the travel industry in this country is very badly hit. In the more short-term rush for growth, those young workers—who work not for a great deal of money but with much enthusiasm, particularly in our hospitality industry and probably in our care industries as well—are much missed. The choice of existing schemes is, to say the least, somewhat idiosyncratic. It is all very well to have a youth mobility scheme with Andorra or Monaco. South Korea and Uruguay may have young people who look fondly on the UK, but I have not come across many of them recently. Perhaps they find places closer to home that they wish to visit and that they can afford to visit. Since we started these specific youth mobility schemes, some of which date back to 2008, half the visitors who have taken advantage of them have come from Australia. Much as we all welcome the Australians who come and work in this country, we need to broaden our horizons and encourage people from our nearest neighbours in Europe. Our estrangement from the EU— from Europe—has been hard on this country, not just for trade, but from an emotional point of view for many people. As other noble Lords have said, it is time for us to really start rebuilding those bridges. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has said, school trips have been decimated. That has had a terrible effect on the language schools in this country. There are grave fears that this situation could get even worse and that short-term tourists will be deterred too by the prospect of the ETA coming into force—not next year, nor the year after, but in April 2025. The ETA scheme is already operating for further flung countries. If it is to come into effect for European countries in April, can the Minister reassure us that everything is up and running to cope with it; that Operation Brock will not be needed again; that coaches will continue to flow through the port of Dover, and that there is nothing to fear? Can she reassure us that businesses, particularly in Kent, will not be hit, because they are fearful that they will suffer terrible disruption? I will finish on a more positive note, as the right reverend Prelate asked us to do. We should take the concept of town twinning as far as we can and encourage towns to build close relationships in Europe; to get together and travel to Europe. Again, I fear that the ETA may be an obstacle in the way of this happening.

15:43:00

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this debate. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his charming and heartfelt speech. I know that he will make a significant contribution to this House. In principle, I welcome the concept of a youth mobility scheme. While most noble Lords in the Chamber are against the Government’s position, I am in the rather perverse position today of defending it, unless the Minister disappoints me later. Even within the last two or three years, we have undertaken bilateral arrangements and discussions with different countries including, indeed, with the EU on a multilateral basis for a youth mobility programme. As other noble Lords have said, in the last few years we have secured arrangements with various countries—Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand and Andorra—so we can do it. It is to be hoped that we can secure a scheme again. Let me talk about the Turing scheme; some noble Lords are rather insouciant and dismissive of it. In 2023, more than 40,000 people benefited from the scheme across 474 successful applications. In 2022, there were 373 successful applications and more than 30,000 students involved. To come back to the point that the right reverend Prelate made about Erasmus+, I am afraid that he is seeing the glass half-empty, not half-full. Yes, we are not proficient in foreign languages, but the reason that Erasmus+ did not work for us post Brexit is that we are number two in the world for soft power—as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said—and people want to come to the UK. Over a seven-year period, the programme would have cost the UK a net £2 billion. On pure cost grounds, it was not feasible to continue that system. In the same way, there are opportunities for collaboration, such as we see with the Horizon programme. Tunisia and Israel, for instance, are not in Horizon, but they have relationships with the European Union. This is a laudable aim, and I do not blame the British Chambers of Commerce and ABTA for making a strong point. I think, however, that your Lordships’ House needs to look at the wider political and economic context of this very difficult decision. There is much criticism of the failure to include a youth mobility scheme in either the withdrawal agreement or the trade and co-operation agreement. With all due respect to noble Lords, the Government at that time had limited bandwidth; they had other pressing priorities and there was a lack of political willpower on both sides by the EU and United Kingdom. Many in your Lordships’ House did everything in their power to obstruct and thwart the UK’s formal legal exit from the EU over many months, which of course impacted negotiations. As someone who was closely involved as chief of staff to the Secretary of State for Brexit and worked closely with the Article 50 task force, I know that the Government had other issues: the financial settlement, the transition period, the Northern Ireland protocol, Cyprus and the sovereign bases, governance of the withdrawal agreement, and Gibraltar, to name the most important. That brings me to the issue of citizens’ rights. For the more than 5 million EU citizens living in the United Kingdom, we have established in legislation and via the independent monitoring authority the most generous and benign immigration regime for non-citizens anywhere in the world. Indeed, in the next few months, the EU settlement scheme will migrate hundreds of thousands of those non-UK citizens from pre-settled to settled status as a result of a High Court case in 2022. That will enable them to have indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, which is de facto citizenship—despite the UK being a third country. No such reciprocal EU-wide regime exists to protect and enhance the rights of British citizens in the European Union. The UK was one of only three countries that, in 2004, imposed no transitional requirements in respect of the free movement directive. The significant numbers who moved to the UK thereafter were many more than were envisaged by either politicians or academics at the time. From 2021 to 2024, more than 4.5 million immigrants migrated to the UK. After five years, the vast majority will be granted indefinite leave to remain, meaning access to benefits, social housing and the NHS. Net migration last year was 728,000. It peaked in 2023, shamefully, at 906,000; no party had put that in their manifesto and it was not agreed by any electors. I hope to explain that that is why the Government are rightly wary of any policy that might give rise to a return to de facto free movement. By 2032, in just seven years’ time, Britain’s population will have risen by 5 million and, in 22 years, by 9 million—a 13% rise in only about 25 years. The immigration system is, frankly, broken, but I will illustrate the many areas of dysfunction—the student visa scheme is a good example of short-termism and putting off difficult financial choices for another day. A glut of student visas was issued in 2021 and onwards, motivated in many cases by the prospect of two years’ work on the graduate visa route. The explosion was driven by huge numbers of people from developing countries attending the lowest cost, least selective institutions, often on shorter postgraduate taught courses. Rather than selling education to future researchers, our universities are increasingly in the business of selling visas to delivery drivers. Why did the Government do this? Short-termism, and it was my party that was in government, I accept that. The long freeze in tuition fees means that the real-terms value of the fees paid by domestic students has dropped by £2,800 since 2012 and, as the Migration Advisory Committee puts it, the sector has “an overreliance on immigration” because the higher fees charged to foreign students are what is keeping the sector from toppling over. While this is good for universities, the wages of those on the graduate route and their ability to switch to longer-term visas suggest that it is less good for the UK. Eventually, if we do not get a grip on this, we will see more pressure on public services, a fall in per capita GDP, a failure to train and upskill our domestic workforce and more welfare dependency—not good for the future of the country. This is the economic context in which we are debating this very important issue today. It is not making a value judgment on whether travel and broadening the mind is generally a good thing; it is just being realistic and pragmatic about the challenges we are facing. That said, I welcome the position paper put forward by the EU Commission seeking a mandate from the Council of Ministers that was published in April last year. I think it is the right thing to do and it is right that we have a meaningful set of negotiations between the EU and the UK on the youth mobility scheme—and it is one which I have read with great care. It is in many ways a sensible and pragmatic opening position, with its emphasis on limited in time mobility and the fulfilment of certain conditions, such as subsistence funding, health insurance and appropriate travel documents. For me and, no doubt, His Majesty’s Government, there are still major impediments before a deal can be secured. Being a third country is a shibboleth for the intransigent absolutists of the European Union and the EU Commission—but it cuts both ways. Professor Catherine Barnard, professor of EU law at Cambridge University, has described the proposal as “a defensive strategy”, as much to prevent the possibility of the UK striking more liberal and permissive youth mobility agreements with individual EU countries on a bilateral basis. Third country status is a two-way street. Why should the UK set aside healthcare surcharges for EU citizens when we have an NHS under huge pressure? Why should we forgo income from foreign students from the EU while charging enhanced fees to those young people from South Korea, India, South Africa, Canada and the United States? We should not accept that we have as an encumbrance single market indivisibility. The youth mobility scheme is part of the Government’s mythical reset—but of solid details, red lines, bargaining points and strategic objectives there are thus far none. If, as the German ambassador has made clear, the EU sees a youth mobility scheme as a priority, the EU will need to de-escalate potential conflict, loosen the rigid negotiation guidelines and be more realistic—perhaps by giving ground on the length of the programme to, say, two years; on higher education fees; on fixing a cap or quota; agreeing a realistic visa cost; and explicitly ruling out the competence of the European Court of Justice. To finish on a positive note, as we all have today, I will quote Oscar Wilde: “Travel improves the mind wonderfully, and does away with all one’s prejudices”. For the avoidance of doubt, I support a programme that allows thousands of young people to travel, work, study, play sport and live among people of different backgrounds and cultures in Europe. It will undoubtedly benefit and enrich their lives and the wider community—I myself have travelled throughout Europe for over 40 years—but it must be done for our national benefit, in our long-term, sustainable national interest and in a pragmatic and realistic way. For that reason, I find myself, unusually, supporting the Government’s position.

15:55:00

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, and very much enjoyed hearing his soft Scottish accent. In fact, we have heard a duo of Scottish accents. We are discussing a hugely complicated area, as we have just heard, but the complications are essentially bureaucratic, economic and political. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Frost, talk about his perception of what the EU had offered. I take his point about our being able to go to only one country while others might be able to come here. However, I was also very pleased to hear him recognise, with all his knowledge and expertise in this area, that we need to do something for touring artists and musicians and, if we can, for youth mobility. The ability to travel and experience the world is profoundly important. It is an important aspect of human behaviour and indeed civilisation. That is not complicated. Going back to the Renaissance and before, curiosity, that prerequisite of intellect, has led people to travel, learn and exchange ideas. Think of the Grand Tour—think of what Turner painted when he toured or what the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, found when she toured. Students of language improve their mastery by visiting and speaking to natives in their mother tongue. I doubt whether many noble Lords have not at some point improved their French, Italian, Spanish or German in France, Italy, Spain or Germany. Perhaps I could refer to some personal reminiscences. My father, Lennox Berkeley, learned his trade as a composer when Maurice Ravel took him to Paris to study with Nadia Boulanger. That quintessentially English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams studied with Ravel and always paid tribute to what he learned. More recently, George Benjamin, one of our leading composers, immersed himself in French music in studies with Olivier Messiaen. Many British composers have benefited, as have I, from visits to IRCAM, Pierre Boulez’s research institute investigating electronic music in the Beaubourg centre. We need to protect our soft power and the voice of our leading artists is a soft power. Talking of soft power, I am extremely concerned to hear that the British Council is heavily in debt, owing to loss of income from English language teaching during Covid. I hope the Government can reassure us that they will support the British Council, which not only helps with the exchange of ideas and helps us take works of art abroad—my opera with Ian McEwan would not have happened in Rome were it not for British Council support—but fosters the exchange of ideas. The Government must try to make sure that the British Council does not sink beneath the waves of the English Channel. It is a really good advert for UK culture, as is the BBC World Service. I must tell noble Lords that I was informed today that it has had to institute some major cuts, despite Government investment. Youth mobility is surely part of growing up, as we have heard. I fear that, if it is not protected and enhanced, it will become, like music education, the preserve of the well off. Reacting to initiatives from the EU, Priti Patel, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said that she thought youth mobility would be damaging to freedom of movement and that it would relax freedom of movement rules. What is the Government’s view of this? In my view, it is overly paranoid. Where would we be without our architects experiencing the work of European architects, without writers immersing themselves in foreign climes, or without cooks sampling international traditions? I would like to see us rejoin Erasmus; although it was quite right of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to talk in glowing terms of the Turing Scheme, it is not Erasmus and it is not reciprocal. I want to see better rules about cabotage—these are utterly ridiculous. If you are taking a symphony orchestra or a ballet company abroad, you have to exchange your truck on entering Europe, and you then have to exchange it again after every two venues. That adds incomparably to the cost of touring. There are things that we can do. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, intimated that there are things that could be tweaked, and that is a good start for all of us. As the right reverend Prelate said at the beginning of the debate, let us not get into well-rehearsed discussions about Brexit but let us see what we can do to improve where we are, and possibly move on from there. I want to see future generations have the opportunities that the right reverend Prelate mentioned. I want them to have the opportunities that we had—to go to Paris and to Berlin, and to discover things and exchange ideas with their counterparts in Europe. I hope that the Government may be able to move us in that direction.

16:02:00

My Lords, I join others in thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his introduction to the debate. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his excellent maiden speech. Along with him and the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, it is a very great pleasure for me to speak in this debate within a solid group of three Dundonians. I will briefly touch on a few points: youth mobility schemes, which are different from those of freedom of movement; how these still benefit international culture as much as national economies; and the current availability of help to us from the 46-state human rights and think tank affiliation of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a prominent member. I am a recent chairman of its Education and Culture Committee. Since Brexit, youth movement numbers from Europe to the United Kingdom have dramatically declined, as many have drawn our attention to. Clearly, this negative trend should be reversed. Does the Minister agree that, if accepted, recent European Commission proposals for a UK-EU youth mobility scheme would achieve two purposes—first, improving numbers, and, secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, and others have pointed out, so doing without causing freedom of movement? Through the proposed EU scheme, individuals can come only for a limited period and thus are not permitted to settle in the United Kingdom, as conversely UK participants are equally restricted from so doing in European Union member states. Do the Government aim to secure a deal with the European Commission very soon? What are their current reservations? Which further concessions, if any, will they then seek to gain from the Commission? Then there are the existing youth mobility schemes which the United Kingdom already has, and which we have heard about in this debate, with 12 different countries, including Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Iceland, Uruguay, Hong Kong and Taiwan. However, regarding the 27 European Union member states, bilateral youth mobility arrangements with any or all of them would be much less desirable than a working arrangement with all of them together through the European Union. That follows anyway, once there is a youth mobility deal with the European Commission itself. Only an EU-level approach will ensure that all member states are treated equally in respect of the mobility of young people to the United Kingdom. Does the Minister concur that this comparative assessment adds a further reason for the Government to secure a timely youth mobility deal with the European Union as soon as possible? As the right reverend Prelate has implied, not only ought we to have a new youth mobility system with the European Union. We should also rejoin Erasmus. The Turin and Horizon schemes are to be welcomed, and I very much endorse what my noble friend Lord Jackson said in praising Horizon. Nevertheless, Erasmus goes much wider, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made this point, too. The cost of Erasmus has been complained about due to more students coming to the United Kingdom than United Kingdom students are going to Europe. Yet that is hardly surprising. For, along with the right reverend Prelate, all your Lordships will lament the continuing inadequacy of language skills in the United Kingdom. The cost of Erasmus is surely well worth paying for, if, to our advantage, it can help redress this and certain other learning deficiencies that the United Kingdom has when compared with different countries in Europe. Regarding economic growth and complementing labour shortages, and in so far as these consequences can be assisted at all by increased youth mobility to the United Kingdom, the Government are right to describe them as secondary goals. The priority must be personal development arising from education and culture exchanges. However, as a useful by-product, youth mobility will clearly improve the United Kingdom economy, as it will serve to reduce our labour shortages. That is why the British Chambers of Commerce urges this to be borne in mind in order to create sensible long-term designs for youth mobility, where these are able to promote culture along with economic growth both here and elsewhere. Does the Minister assent that it is exactly this duality of good cultural and economic outcomes together which sensible long-term youth mobility designs ought to contain? Does she believe that this should, therefore, become part of our forthcoming talks with the European Commission, equally so to accompany our application to rejoin Erasmus, hence as well shaping our plan of action to rejoin Erasmus this year, as soon as we can, after concluding a youth mobility deal with the European Union? Fortunately, and in any case, we are already party to a number of Council of Europe initiatives related to youth mobility. These strengthen our hand for European Commission dealings, as they also do for applying to rejoin Erasmus. Over the last few decades, the United Kingdom has variously signed and ratified the European Agreement on Continued Payment of Scholarships to Students Studying Abroad; the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region; and the European Agreement on Travel by young Persons on Collective Passports between the Member Countries of the Council of Europe. One action we have not so far signed is the European Agreement on Regulations governing the Movement of Persons between Member States of the Council of Europe. That would assist UK citizens, by indicating the travel and identity papers which they need for crossing between signatory states. We should sign this without too much further delay. Can the Minister please give an assurance that we will do so? Not least, there is also the Council of Europe’s European Youth Foundation from which we benefit. This funds European youth activities to encourage peace, understanding and co-operation within Europe and globally, in a spirit of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Given that, save for only one of them, the United Kingdom is already party to these Council of Europe measures and their broad aims, I am quite sure that the Minister would consider that we must make full use of their powerful range and advocacy. We should do so when we talk to the European Commission and others about co-operating within a variety of constructive options. For the more we adopt that approach, the more likely it becomes that we will achieve our objectives, including the immediate ones this year of rejoining Erasmus and improving youth mobility to the United Kingdom.

16:10:00

My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate towards the end of this debate. Like other noble Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for introducing what is clearly a timely debate. As my noble friend Lady Featherstone has pointed out, there have been debates in the other place initiated by our honourable friends James MacCleary MP, who had a Private Member’s Bill about youth mobility, and Sarah Olney, the Member for Richmond Park, who had a debate on exactly the same topic yesterday. On these Benches, we have a very clear sense that youth mobility matters. Unlike perhaps the other Benches, we are also absolutely united in believing that youth mobility matters as a way of strengthening our relations with our European partners. I am very glad that I am not having to summate either from the Official Opposition Front Bench or the Government Front Bench, because I suspect that both are a little more constrained by their party lines and in some cases by the fact that their Back Benches are so completely at odds over how far they believe youth mobility should be part of a wider package—or not. It is always the convention to congratulate a new Peer on their maiden speech. As others have done today, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moraes. His maiden speech was quite different from so many. It was not self-aggrandising in any way; it was one of the most humble speeches but one that also made very clear the important role that he played in the European Parliament and the role that he is going to play in your Lordships’ House. Not only is the noble Lord very welcome but his maiden speech is also one that we will all remember. Youth mobility is hugely important but was dramatically reduced for young people when we left the European Union. The right reverend Prelate is right that today is not the day to rehearse the rights and wrongs of Brexit, but it is the time to think about what we can do to enhance the opportunities for our young people. I think I will be unique this afternoon in declaring an interest. Unlike my namesake, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, I clearly would not fit into any youth mobility scheme. I note that even the youngest Member of your Lordships’ House would be pushing it to participate in any proposed youth mobility scheme by the time His Majesty’s Government get around to agreeing to the idea if the cap is going to be the age of 30. My interests lie in the fact that I am a professor at Cambridge University and a non-executive director of BIMM University Limited, so I have higher education interests which obviously link to the mobility of young people. Like that of my noble friend Lady Featherstone, my life was very much changed by the opportunity to travel when I was young. In my case, I went on a French exchange. It was exactly the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, described; many of us will have been to other countries on school exchanges. In those days, you did not get just a five-year passport for a child or a 10-year passport for an adult; you could have a one-year, temporary, paper passport. As I was so anxious about going, that is what I asked for—aged 14—just in case I did not really like being abroad or I felt that it was a bit too much and never wanted to go again. However, I found that going to another European country was empowering, and I am still close to the family that I exchanged with. It was an opportunity to learn modern foreign languages in a way that people find so much harder in the 2020s. Like other noble Lords, I think that we should consider ensuring that we have as many opportunities as possible for young people—ideally those between 18 and 30, as well as school groups and other individuals—to go to other European countries without going through excessive bureaucratic procedures. A formal youth mobility scheme is clearly desirable. What it would look like is open for negotiation. We have heard today some anxiety that what the European Commission seems to be proposing might have too many constraints. However, surely the purpose of a negotiation is that each side says, “This is our starting point”, and then at a certain point, you find a compromise. The fact that the European Commission has put forward some ideas is clearly welcome. What is less welcome—indeed, it is rather worrying—is the fact that His Majesty’s Government have been talking about a reset with the European Union. At one level, it sounds wonderful: that we need to rebuild our relations and trust. However, it leaves me, leading from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, having to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost. He talked about the reset being rather vague and said that, at the moment, we have no idea what it means. We know that the Foreign Secretary has been talking about closer co-operation in security and defence. If we listen to what is being said in Brussels or Berlin, there is clearly also an interest in the sense that, if the United Kingdom wants to build up a security and defence relationship with the European Union, youth mobility might be seen as part of a quid pro quo. We understand that the Minister will not give us a running commentary and that she will clearly have been told that she has to read out the standard memo: that we are not going back into the customs union or the single market, and we are not rejoining the European Union—all the things that noble Lords know that Front-Bench Ministers are told to say. The mantra seems to be inevitable, almost regardless of the question. I do not expect her to say any of that, but can she say whether His Majesty’s Government are open to thinking about youth mobility? Will they listen to the calls from her noble friend Lord Moraes, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others about the importance of youth mobility for our young people? As my noble friend Lady Featherstone pointed out, for UK citizens, the opportunity to study, to work and to travel is hugely important. One of the words that has come up in this debate is “reciprocity”, but that is one of the things that is missing from the Turing scheme. However effective the scheme might be for outward mobility, what we lack is the idea that students will come back and study in the UK. We heard from certain noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that there may be a concern about migration figures. However, a youth mobility scheme is not about migration. This is time-limited, and if we are to be part of a negotiation, numbers could be limited, too. There are all sorts of ways in which a youth mobility scheme could be reciprocal. That would have benefits not just for our young people but for soft power. Indeed, at Oral Questions this morning, if I noted correctly what the Minister said, she agreed that a youth mobility scheme is not a return to free movement. If that is indeed the Government’s position—the Minister is nodding—can she give us some hope that the Government might be open to a mobility scheme? It would strengthen UK soft power—like, I suspect, many noble Lords, I had not heard about the new soft power council that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, told us about. If the Government are concerned about soft power, exchanges are one of the ways to help that. International higher education is one aspect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, pointed out the other day, in response to a question from me—except my question was not about international higher education, it was much more about exchanges. What we have seen in the past is that international higher education, but also places such as Sandhurst or the Royal College of Defence Studies, gives the opportunity for people to come temporarily and they go back to their home countries with a better understanding of the United Kingdom, very often having exchanged with future leaders. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, today’s young people are tomorrow’s leaders. Engaging in reciprocal exchanges gives our young people the opportunity to make contacts that will mean that we are better able to work with our partners, whether they are across the channel or the Atlantic, in the future. There are many reasons why youth mobility is an important issue that should be considered on its own merits, in addition to being viewed as something that will help us foster stronger relations with the European Union. Does the Minister agree?

16:21:00

My Lords, I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech. I also flag that I greatly enjoyed hearing about the tour of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone—from Oxford Polytechnic to travelling in Europe to politics. I believe all noble Lords would agree that our country’s youth are our future. We have heard much talk this week of the importance of economic growth, but long-term growth will be achieved only if we nurture and cherish those young people who are the future leaders of tomorrow. Educational opportunities, including those for travel and exchange, are vital for Britain’s youth if they are to flourish. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, mentioned the existing bilateral youth mobility agreements, as did my noble friends Lord Kirkhope and Lord Jackson. To facilitate such educational exchanges, the UK already has bilateral youth mobility agreements with 12 countries. These are reciprocal arrangements that benefit young people from both countries involved. We also have the Turing and Horizon schemes. However, it is equally important that we ensure that such bilateral schemes are balanced with the needs of the UK. Therefore, these schemes have strict caps on the numbers of people who are able to obtain visas under them and quotas to ensure that the UK retains complete control over the numbers of people entering the country through such visas. Many noble Lords have raised in the debate the proposal for a new EU-UK youth mobility scheme put forward by the European Commission last year, but His Majesty’s Official Opposition believe that there are several issues with this. First, an EU-UK youth mobility scheme would pose challenges to British universities. The Commission’s proposal included provision for equal treatment between EU and UK citizens in respect of higher education tuition fees. Currently, the level of tuition fees for international students for an undergraduate degree varies between £11,400 and £38,000 per year, and the institutions involved derive approximately 20% of their revenue from international students’ fees. If EU students were to pay home fees, this could place a further strain on the finances of universities, many of which are already struggling. Jamie Arrowsmith, head of the international arm of Universities UK, told the trade publication Research Professional News that an EU-UK youth mobility scheme would be “difficult for the Government to agree to” given the financial situation of British universities. He continued: “At a time when tuition fees don’t cover the full cost of teaching … it’s difficult to see how this could work without exacerbating concerns over financial sustainability or imposing a significant cost on the government”. Secondly, there are concerns surrounding numbers. Home Office statistics indicate that, during the year ending June 2024, 24,091 grants were made through the current youth mobility scheme. That would appear manageable, but with the ONS recently stating that the UK population will rise to 72.5 million by 2032, it is important that we take a measured approach to the number of people coming to the UK. The country voted to leave the EU. We must therefore be careful that we do not enter into any arrangement that may lead to freedom of movement being unintentionally implemented. An EU-wide youth mobility scheme, as the European Commission called for, would potentially lead to that. We have also heard much talk of the Government’s proposed EU reset, which was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Jackson. The 2024 Labour manifesto stated that Labour is: “confident in our status outside of the EU, but a leading nation in Europe once again, with an improved and ambitious relationship with our European partners”. The Prime Minister has stated that the Government do not have plans to introduce such a scheme, but he has not ruled it out completely. Given that they have made so much of their reset with the EU and that the European Union appears to be pushing for a youth mobility scheme to be part of any new deal with the UK, how can we be sure that the Government do not agree to something that may see freedom of movement reintroduced? Can the Minister confirm that His Majesty’s Government will not enter into an agreement with the EU that introduces an open-ended youth mobility scheme? Finally, we should have a greater focus on domestic opportunities for our young people. There is a plethora of enriching experiences from which they can benefit at home, such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and the cadet force, which I referred to in today’s third Oral Question. As an example, studies have confirmed that being on the cadet force improves school attendance, improves mental and physical well-being and results in enhanced employability. While the report did not make a monetary estimate of the total benefits of being a cadet, it estimated that the cost savings from a reduced use of mental health services and better educational outcomes were worth around £95 million a year. For that reason, we ask the Minister why the Government are removing the National Citizen Service and why the Department for Education is ceasing its funding of the cadet expansion programme. I hope all noble Lords agree that, if we want our young generation truly to thrive, we should be strengthening these programmes and others like them, not removing them or cutting their funding.

16:28:00

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate on the case for a new youth mobility scheme with European countries. I echo the warm welcome across your Lordships’ House to my noble friend Lord Moraes and congratulate him on his maiden speech. It is clear that he has a wealth of knowledge and experience to contribute to your Lordships’ House on this and other significant issues. He already has many friends here from his previous career, not least at the European Parliament. I note that, with my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, he also joins an impressive group of Dundonians. We have heard a lot of interesting, impassioned speeches about the opportunities of the reset and youth mobility. I will address these points in turn but, as someone married to an EEA citizen, I first thank the right reverend Prelate for noting that Europe extends beyond the EU. As someone who sees the significance of the right to vote and to obtain a passport, I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that settled status is de facto citizenship. However, it is significant, not least because my husband got his settled status just two weeks ago and we celebrated that as a major life moment. I thought it would be useful to update Peers on the progress that the Government have made on the reset of relations with the EU so far, not least as this debate falls the day before the fifth anniversary of the UK leaving the EU. As the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, noted, this was following a democratic vote where citizens were asked whether or not they wanted to leave the EU. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will take some comfort from the fact that this Government are clear that we want to reset the relationship with our European friends and neighbours. We will not, however, be relitigating Brexit—a point referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in her speech. However, I will say that the Government are committed to delivering an improved and ambitious relationship with our European partners within the EU and beyond. We do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that there was not a need to do this. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, that keeping the red lines we committed to—our election promises—is somehow not brave: in other words, cowardly and wrong. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, implied that I do not agree with the Government on this and am merely sort of parroting words—I paraphrase, but I should make it very clear that I do agree with the Government’s position and am proud to restate it. I am clear that we should not use our majority in the other place to break our manifesto commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked me to set out the objectives of the reset, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, also spoke about the reset. The noble Baroness is right that I am not going to give a running commentary. The President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and UK, putting it on a more solid, stable footing. The Prime Minister met with European Commission President von der Leyen in the autumn to agree to strengthen our relationship, and they met again on 7 November at the EPC in Budapest. The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council in October and the Chancellor addressed the Eurogroup meeting in December. The Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, Nick Thomas-Symonds, has been taking discussions forward with his counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, asked whether a youth mobility scheme would be discussed with EU leaders next week. As noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the Prime Minister will travel to Brussels on 3 February to attend an informal EU Council meeting at the invitation of Council President António Costa. In response to the noble Baroness’s question, this discussion is expected to focus on the geostrategic challenges facing Europe. We have agreed to hold regular UK-EU summits at leader level to review progress, starting in the first half of this year. In particular, we want to work closely to address wider global challenges including economic headwinds, geopolitical competition, irregular migration, climate change and energy prices, which pose fundamental challenges to our shared values and provide the strategic driver for stronger co-operation. We will work across the three pillars of the UK-EU reset: safety, security and the economy. We recognise that delivering new agreements will take time, but we are ambitious, have clear priorities and want to move forward at pace. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, asked about consultations on the EU reset with young people. As we move forward, we recognise the importance of maintaining an effective dialogue with industry leaders, trade unions and civil society through a variety of means. This includes the formal channels such as the UK TCA domestic advisory group and the Civil Society Forum. My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie asked about the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. Before I turn to the question of mobility, which I will come on to shortly, I want to make it clear to my noble friend that the convention is not a customs union or an EU scheme. We are always looking at ways to reduce barriers to trade in the EU, within our red lines, as this is essential to driving growth at home. This is an option and it is right and responsible that we look at it, but we are not seeking necessarily to participate in it at the present time. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, asked whether everything was up and running in relation to electronic travel authorisation, which will be rolled out to European nationals later this year. I can assure her that the rollout started in October 2023 and is proceeding well. If there are other points relating to borders that she wishes to raise with me, I am happy to pick that up after this debate. Turning now to the question of youth mobility, I want to be clear in response to the right reverend Prelate’s question that this is not the same as freedom of movement. That came up at several points throughout the debate. This Government recognise the value of people-to-people connections and of schemes which give young people the opportunity to experience different cultures of work. The noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Featherstone, made this point very powerfully. These opportunities exist in various forms internationally. Working holiday programmes offered by countries such as France and Chile, scholarship schemes such as Chevening and Marshall in the UK, the Australia Awards, Fulbright in the US and the Japanese Government’s scholarship scheme are other examples of mobility programmes. There is also the Turing scheme, which I will speak about in more detail in a moment, and the Taith scheme in Wales. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, made clear, some training or education institutions have their own schemes. My own year studying abroad was part of my degree course; it was not facilitated by Erasmus. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on the importance of modern languages—a point also made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. We lose something if we do not have an ability as a country to look beyond our borders and learn foreign languages. That is a strongly held personal view that I have expressed previously in this House. To be clear to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, the EU has not put forward a proposal to us on youth mobility at the moment. There was some potential misunderstanding on the part of a number of noble Lords that this is an active proposal that is on the table. It has not been put forward at the moment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lords, Lord Moraes and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked about a youth mobility scheme, which differs from free movement in several ways. A youth mobility scheme would require an application. It is time-bound. There are age restrictions. It operates on quotas generally and is subject to charges such as a visa application fee and the immigration health surcharge. The free movement provisions were unconditional for those who were entitled to access them. A number of noble Lords mentioned Turing. As noble Lords are aware, the Turing scheme is the UK Government’s programme for students to study and work anywhere in the world. Since 2021, the scheme has helped tens of thousands of UK students to develop new skills, gain international experience and boost their employability, both in the EU and beyond. Turing provides more funding to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, so they can participate in international placements, breaking down barriers to opportunity. For the 2024-25 academic year, education providers and other eligible organisations from across the UK have been allocated over £105 million to send more than 43,000 students on study and work placements across the globe. I am pleased to say that around 53% of those opportunities will be for participants from disadvantaged backgrounds. Those are not small numbers, in my view. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and others referred to the issues facing touring artists, soft power and Creative Europe. Noble Lords have highlighted the benefits of mobility arrangements for musicians, choirs and artists, as well as for the wider creative sector. We are working with the creative and cultural sectors to ensure that our world-leading sectors can continue to promote growth and enrich lives at home and abroad. As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to supporting our touring artists in performing and promoting themselves around the world. That is why we are engaging with the European Commission and EU member states to explore how best to improve arrangements for touring without seeing a return to free movement. We have not proposed any plans for Creative Europe. We want to look forward, not backwards, working together on shared priorities and global challenges. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and others mentioned the UK Soft Power Council. The Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are co-chairing the council, which is made up from experts from the foreign policy and soft power sectors, including culture, the creative industries, media and sport. The first meeting of the council was on 15 January. The council will advise the Government on a strategy, a new campaign, and a strategic calendar of domestic and international events. We agree with noble Lords who made it clear that our soft power in these areas is one of our strengths in international relations. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about the issues facing the British Council. We remain committed to ensuring the financial stability of the British Council, and our continued funding underlines our support for its important work in promoting the English language, UK arts and culture, and education. I hope he finds that reassuring. Separate from Turing, our bilateral youth mobility schemes provide a range of valuable cultural exchange opportunities, offering young people from the UK and partner countries the chance to experience life in another country and to make lifelong ties and friendships overseas. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Smith of Newnham, spoke about school trips. I did not have such a positive experience of my own French exchange at school, but that did not put me off travelling later in life, which was good. The Government are committed to providing enriching opportunities for our students and young people to experience other countries and cultures. The previous Government agreed measures with France in 2023 that make travel for school groups between the UK and France easier. Such schemes and programmes exist the world over because they have well-documented cultural and social benefits. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, highlighted, successive Governments in the UK have supported youth mobility schemes, from the very first youth mobility scheme in 2008 with Canada to the agreements with India and Uruguay in 2023 and 2024 respectively. As the noble Earls, Lord Effingham and Lord Dundee, noted, the United Kingdom already offers and operates a number of bilateral youth mobility schemes with European countries such as Iceland and Andorra, as well as with a number of our global partners such as India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As of last autumn, these schemes have attracted 24,000 participants to the UK who have come here to work, study or simply to visit and spend some time in the UK. That is a testament to the value of these opportunities. With regard to a prospective scheme with the EU, the Government have been clear that we do not have any plans for a youth mobility scheme, but we will look at the EU’s proposals on a range of issues. The Government have been elected on a commitment not to return to free movement. In response to the question from the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, we will not be returning to free movement. This objective must be respected, but it does not diminish the value of the schemes that we have discussed in your Lordships’ House today. We are committed to our promises and to delivering for the British people.

16:43:00

My Lords, I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions to this debate, which has been wide-ranging and fascinating. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his excellent maiden speech. I am sure he is going to make many valuable contributions to the work of your Lordships’ House over the coming years. It is clear to all of us that this is a subject which is going up the agenda; it is not going to go away. This is so important to our young people. We have all managed to resist, by and large, rerunning arguments about the EU or Brexit, because we need to try to find new ways forward. As always in a debate in your Lordships’ House, I find myself having learned a whole lot of new information. Some of the facts, for example, on university fees I was not aware of. I realise, as always when we look at the seemingly simple problems we want to solve, that often there are things we have not considered. That is certainly true for me. However, there is a consensus that there is a real urgency to try to see how we can take this forward for some areas, particularly, for example, for musicians and artists, and how we can perhaps build and develop Turing and Horizon; how we can look to develop other bilateral agreements; and how, with the EU reset, we can take every opportunity to find as many win-win solutions as we can to provide as many opportunities as possible for our young people to be able to move into other cultures and to learn—whatever we call it; let us keep away from some of the phrases we have used. We just need to try to find movement on this. I am hugely grateful for all the contributions and I look forward to working in the future with Members of your Lordships’ House as we try to develop this further, for the sake of our young people and our place in the world.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 4.46 pm.