Erasmus Programme

Question

15:22:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Erasmus programme, what steps they are taking to ensure that youth work and adult education organisations can access international exchange opportunities.

We could have done with a bit of diversity in those answering Questions today. My Lords, the Turing scheme provides funding for adults at further or higher education institutions to do international study and work placements. It also provides funding for staff accompanying school trips. DfE offers several exchange opportunities, including UK-German Connection and language assistance programmes. Additionally, DCMS will be publishing a new national youth strategy in the summer, which will rebuild a thriving and sustainable youth sector.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, but has her department looked at what the Welsh Government are doing in this area? The scheme known as Taith, which means journey, has developed into a programme which, for many, works better than Erasmus. There is engagement in Taith from schools, youth organisations, adult ed and FE colleges. Those who have never previously considered international exchange as an option are applying for Taith funding, providing more opportunities for those with the least access and the greatest barriers. Would the Minister agree to look at this excellent scheme?

Yes, I would agree. I acknowledge my noble friend’s recognition and explanation of the Taith programme. My department and I hold regular discussions with Welsh Government colleagues about a range of policy issues, and this is a good example of our ability to learn from each other. I also note her important point about how Taith—and now, the Government’s Turing scheme—provides additional support to participants from disadvantaged backgrounds so that they can participate in international placements. We have made considerable progress in the Turing scheme in doing that.

My Lords, we had a long debate in the House recently on the question of restoring a youth mobility scheme with our European partners. Is it not now surely time for us to proceed with that, given that it has no negative impacts on the freedom of movement issue or indeed on our Immigration Rules? Young people all across Europe want to be able to meet and work together in the interests of future democracy and peace.

This Government are very keen to ensure that we reset our relationships with the EU, but that, of course, happens across a whole range of areas. The last time I responded to questions on this issue, I said that it feels appropriate to me to carry out that negotiation across the whole range of issues, and to do so in detail and in breadth, as my right honourable friend Nick Thomas-Symonds is doing.

My Lords, part of the reason why UK students took less advantage of the Erasmus scheme was our language skills capability, and because it was limited to Europe. The Turing scheme, which 42,000 students have taken advantage of so far—21,000 from disadvantaged backgrounds—is global. Does the Minister agree that our Turing scheme is working extremely well, and we should give it time to settle down?

The noble Lord makes an important point about the Turing scheme: that, unlike Erasmus, it extends beyond the European Union. In fact, some of the most popular destinations have been outside the EU. If we truly want people to have a global opportunity, that is an important element of it.

My Lords, the Erasmus+ programme is often talked about as the higher education part—I declare an interest, being on an advisory board for a Czech university programme—but it also allows for vocational education and training opportunities for between two weeks and 12 months. Given that the Minister will not undertake to do anything unilaterally, may I suggest that she takes back to Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds the idea of looking at ways of re-engaging, not just for those in higher education but those in further education and vocational education and training? They stand to gain a huge amount.

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. We of course work hard to ensure that international students can come here and contribute to and benefit from UK higher education. When I talk to international counterparts, they talk about the enormous value of our skills and vocational training and the need to ensure shared learning and opportunities. In anything that happens in the future, we should make sure that this is seen as something not only for higher education but for further education and technical and skills education.

My Lords, universities in the Cathedrals Group—the 14 higher education institutions founded by the churches—have a higher proportion of students who progress to university when they are older, and/or who are the first in their family to progress to university. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that all students who wish to, and particularly those experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, are able to access the life-changing opportunities afforded by studying abroad, given the loss to students of Erasmus funding?

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point about this being an opportunity that people need to have at all stages of their life. I think I am right to say that Turing does enable older students to benefit from it, and, as I have already emphasised, it has certainly focused on ensuring that people who come from more disadvantaged backgrounds have the opportunity to experience travelling, visiting and learning overseas in a way they otherwise would not have been able to do.

My Lords—

My Lords, at the risk of injuring my noble friend twice in a row, may I pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel? Can the Minister update the House on which countries are most popular among students undertaking the Turing scheme, and how does the percentage of disadvantaged students engaging with the scheme compare with that for its predecessor, the Erasmus scheme?

Yes, the noble Baroness can encourage me to do that, and I hope I will be able to do so. I think I am right in saying that five out of 10 of the most popular Turing scheme countries are outside the EU. As we have previously discussed, that is important. In 2024-25, 53% of people who are expected to take part in the scheme are from disadvantaged backgrounds. I think that all who have contributed so far have recognised that, whatever scheme we have, the focus we put on that opportunity is really important.

My Lords, I warmly endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I accept the comments of the noble Lord on the benefits of the Turing scheme. Does the Minister accept that the status of associated third countries, enjoyed by countries such as Norway, Serbia and Turkey, is not incompatible with these other schemes? Might there be a way of bringing them together?

I am not wholly clear which other schemes the noble Lord is talking about, but I am happy to follow that up with him. If he is saying that we need to ensure that any scheme we support is as broad as possible in the opportunities it makes available to young people and older people, and if he is suggesting that we also need to consider bilateral youth mobility schemes—which we do have—with countries such as India, Canada, Australia, Iceland and Andorra, that is a useful contribution and certainly something we should do.

My Lords, the noble Lord was making the point that the Erasmus scheme takes in large numbers of countries that are not in the European Union, so there is no need to conduct this discussion as a competition between Turing and Erasmus. The best thing for the Government to do, surely, is to try to get the best elements of both schemes in one that we can now support in the future.

I do not think that I have conducted it as a competition between the two. It is not that difficult for this House to work out, had things gone differently in 2016, what situation I would rather be in. But we are in the position we are in at this point, and we have made it clear that we do not plan to re-enter the Erasmus scheme or to reintroduce free movement. However, what we have heard today is a general consensus that future schemes, whatever auspices they come under, that enable people to experience studying, working and living in other countries are important. We should do all we can to encourage particularly those who would not otherwise have these opportunities to be supported by whatever schemes we develop.