Youth Mobility Scheme: EU

I ask all Members not staying for this debate to leave as quietly as they can. This is a 30-minute debate, so there will be no opportunity for the Member leading it to wind up at the end.

11:00:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The Government have committed to resetting our relationship with the EU, and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are actively engaging to build trust and rebuild relations with our European neighbours through meetings with the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council. The Liberal Democrats want 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 to help to restore prosperity and opportunities for British people. In the light of the new Trump Administration in Washington, the Government are rightly looking to build a closer defence and security agreement with Europe. European officials, however, are insisting that those agreements come in tandem with other partnerships, including a youth mobility scheme. What is the Minister’s response to an article published this morning in the Financial Times stating that the EU has made it clear that a youth mobility scheme is “vital” to any broader reset with the UK, including security and defence? Providing opportunities to young people should be at the heart of Government policy. The Liberal Democrats believe that establishing a youth mobility scheme would offer not only huge benefits to young people, but a broader range of benefits, including strengthening cultural, social and economic links between the EU and the UK.

I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.

The Government talk a lot about growth being crucial for restoring the public finances. Does my hon. Friend agree that sectors such as hospitality—it is important in my constituency of South Devon—are struggling from lack of staff? If we could restore a youth movement deal, we would have lots of enthusiastic European youngsters coming to the UK to learn English and help to boost productivity in that sector.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are so many vacancies across our hospitality and tourism sectors, and a youth mobility scheme could be instrumental in helping us to fill them.

The hon. Lady is a thoughtful MP and is always trying to find the ways forward, and I welcome that—it is all about solutions. While I believe in neighbourly friendly relations and affording young people opportunity, does she not agree with the concerns that I and MPs in Northern Ireland have about the EU continuing to hold Northern Ireland to ransom by our packages and business deliveries? We must see resolution to that if we are to find a positive way forward, and consideration can then be given to any further changes to the youth mobility scheme. I understand the logic of that, so let us support it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very nice words. I totally understand the issues around the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland; all I would say is that instituting a youth mobility scheme would go a long way to improving relations with the EU, and I think it would unlock some of the other issues we are experiencing. We already have youth mobility schemes in place with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, so why not with EU countries? It would once again allow young people across the UK to be able to spend time with our nearest neighbours without having to navigate Brexit red tape. A youth mobility scheme with the EU would open up opportunities for British young people to learn new skills, languages and cultures and bring all that back with them to benefit our economy and our society.

I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ interest in youth mobility. Those of us who bought their first album recognise that one of the challenges here is to get the right deal for British workers. Does the hon. Lady agree that the deal that was offered last year, which would have seen British workers being able to go to only one country under the scheme, was not the right one for this country and that, if we are to have a youth mobility scheme, we need to renegotiate what is being offered?

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although I am not sure what she means by the first album. We are talking about a comprehensive agreement. The EU has already indicated that it would be willing to discuss, and of course we should not enter agreements that are not to our advantage. As the Government know, a youth mobility scheme would not lead to a return to freedom of movement. After all, under the terms of the existing scheme, youth mobility visas are limited in duration and the number of eligible young people is capped. Delivering such a scheme would provide a return on investment in the form of soft power, which was never seemingly factored into the approach of the previous Conservative Government. The scheme that the Liberal Democrats propose is familiar and tried and tested; it allows those aged 18 to 30 to live, work and study in the countries involved for a set period. The advantages of a youth mobility scheme go far beyond the extension to a new generation of young people of the opportunities that many of us took for granted in our own youth. The wholly inadequate deal with the EU negotiated by the previous Conservative Government has done enormous damage to British businesses. We have seen soaring import costs, increased workforce shortages and reams of red tape, which have created huge barriers to growth. Exports by small businesses have dropped by 30%, and 20,000 small firms across the UK have stopped all exports to the EU. The UK faces acute labour shortages in sectors such as hospitality, the arts, entertainment and retail—exactly the kinds of jobs that young people visiting the UK for a few years might take on.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of the Erasmus scheme was that it provided funding so that people from disadvantaged backgrounds could take advantage of the scheme, and that any youth mobility scheme should ensure access to everyone?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the Erasmus programme. Our young people—those aged under 30—have struggled more, I think, than other age groups to overcome the impact of the pandemic and lockdown on many of their formative experiences. The Government should be looking for every opportunity to offer them the kinds of experiences that would have been available to those who are now in older age groups when they were younger. Young people visiting the UK for a few years might take on jobs in the hospitality sector while studying, immersing themselves in our culture or improving their grasp of our language. Across the country, small and medium-sized businesses are struggling, and a youth mobility scheme would offer British businesses a real opportunity to address staffing shortages by welcoming young people from EU countries for a limited period, bringing fresh talent and energy to our workforce.

Does the hon. Lady agree that apprenticeships are a critical feature of any mobility scheme, as the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) suggested? We need to ensure not only that the businesses that the hon. Lady describes get the staff they need in specific sectors, but that the scheme is not an elitist one.

I am passionate about opportunities for young people; that is why I am talking about a youth mobility scheme in this debate, but we also need to get behind a whole range of policy interventions, including apprenticeships and funding for further education. We need also to look at barriers to employment, particularly for those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, so I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about apprenticeships. I have heard from stakeholders in the hospitality sector that they would welcome this proposal. The changes to the immigration system implemented in April 2024, which increased the minimum salary threshold for skilled worker visas, shrank the talent pool from which hospitality businesses can recruit and contributed to greater staff shortages. Around three quarters of the hospitality workforce is filled from within the UK, but international talent has always been attracted to the UK because of our pedigree in hospitality and our talent for developing careers. Given that recent Government decisions at the Budget added to the overall tax burden on hospitality businesses—many are now considering whether their businesses remain viable—we must provide the tools that hospitality businesses need to grow, so that they can boost the wider economy. Those tools include ensuring access to global talent.

I think it is so important to reflect on the fact that we now have a Government who are actively saying that we want a stronger and closer relationship with the European Union. That is the context for this debate. I am personally very sympathetic to the idea of a youth mobility scheme with the European Union. We inherited from the last Government a lot that makes little sense, including the fact that we have relationships on youth mobility with Uruguay and Taiwan but not with our closest neighbours, the European Union. The reset will take time, however, and I completely respect the fact that this Government cannot give away every part of their negotiating strategy in public at this stage. I congratulate the hon. Member on this important debate, but I also completely understand why we cannot have all the details right now.

I am glad to hear these words about the Labour Government’s commitment to improving our relationships with the European Union, but what the Liberal Democrats would like to see is some action. We think introducing a youth mobility scheme is a valuable and necessary first step and there is no reason why we cannot crack on and do that now. The Government have made it clear that their No. 1 priority is economic growth—if anyone was in any doubt about that, the Chancellor has been making a speech on it this very morning—but any proposal that might involve our European neighbours in contributing to boosting growth is dismissed. A youth mobility scheme is a pragmatic and mutually beneficial proposal that would benefit the UK economy and labour market in the long term.

In 2016, the Home Office said that youth mobility visa holders contributed an average of £7,600 to the Exchequer’s coffers every year; that amounts to more than £10,000 today. There is economic benefit from a youth mobility scheme, and I find it hard to look my children in the eye and tell them that they will not have the freedoms that I and my parents were able to enjoy. Given all that, does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is absolutely right and urgent that a youth mobility scheme should be brought forward?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right— I wish that the Chancellor, who I gather is somewhere in Oxfordshire, had been here to hear her intervention. She is so right to say that a youth mobility scheme of this kind would make a real, substantial impact on growth in the UK; more than—dare I say it?—the expansion of Heathrow would. Such a scheme would play a vital role in stimulating the growth that this country so clearly needs and that we very much support the Chancellor in her call for. Rebuilding our relationship with Europe is a fundamental part of making Britain more secure and more prosperous. With the threat of tariffs from the new Trump Administration, it has never been more important for our Government to break down the barriers to trade erected under the previous Conservative Government. By repairing those ties with the EU, we will be able to deal with this unreliable and unpredictable actor in the White House from a position of strength. Introducing a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK would send a clear message that this country is serious about supporting our young people and backing British business with the labour force that it needs to grow. The EU has been very clear that it would welcome a youth mobility scheme and has now signalled that agreeing to such a scheme will in fact be a necessary step before broader partnerships, including on defence, are established. I urge the Government to embark on negotiations to expand opportunities for young people across the country and to acknowledge the broader benefits that a youth mobility scheme could provide.

11:13:00

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on two counts: first, on securing this debate—she always holds me to account on European matters at Cabinet Office questions, and I very much welcome the scrutiny that she provides—and, secondly, on her appointment as the Government’s trade envoy to North Africa. The case that she is making today about deepening trade links is one that I am sure she will be able to employ in that role as well, so I look forward to her doing that and to hearing all about it. When I hear the hon. Lady speak about a more co-operative, close relationship with the European Union, I entirely agree. That is precisely what the Government are seeking to build. I would, however, introduce one note of caution. As the hon. Lady can imagine, I read the Financial Times avidly; it is a fine, authoritative publication. However, although we now move towards the first of the UK-EU summits, we have not actually entered that intense period of negotiation yet. She should perhaps treat what she reads in the FT, including about what that negotiation will consist of, with a little caution. I will turn in a moment to the specific issue of youth mobility, but I want to set in context the EU-UK reset this Government have embarked on. First, I am very pleased with the progress that has been made so far. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that, going into this more intense phase of negotiation, it was very important that the new European Commission was formally in place. That happened in December and we can now move into this new phase. However, the Government have already been making significant strides forward. There have been dozens of ministerial visits across Government and we have been working co-operatively with our European counterparts. The Prime Minister met the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on 2 October. I was with them in Brussels when that meeting took place. They agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK, put it on a more solid, stable footing and then move forward in their discussions ahead of the first of the summits. The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council in October, the Chancellor attended the Eurogroup meeting in December and I have had frequent meetings and discussions with my counterpart at the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič. Those discussions are, of course, ongoing. On 3 February—Monday of next week—we will see the Prime Minister attend the European Council. He was invited by the President of the Council António Costa, who I met with the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street just before Christmas. As I say, we will then move towards the summit, which we have said will take place in the first half of this year.

The Minister is giving a good account of the diaries of various Ministers. If meetings were a measure of success, we would all say that the Government were very successful, but they are not. When will we see outcomes from this rapprochement with the EU?

I do not share the hon. Member’s downbeat assessment, and neither does the European Union. Maroš Šefčovič himself said last week that our relationship with the EU is definitely in a more positive place. I hope the hon. Member welcomes that. What we have is a very co-operative relationship. For example, I am responsible for the Windsor framework taskforce, which is in the new EU relations secretariat at the Cabinet Office, in the centre of Government. I am sure he would welcome the creation of this new secretariat as it prioritises this relationship, which is precisely what is being argued for in this debate. I will give him an example from when we first came to office, that of dental amalgam and EU regulations on mercury. In previous Administrations, that would have blown up into a significant row, but it did not. With our new, mature relationship, it was dealt with very pragmatically. He will not have to wait too long until the EU-UK summit, after which he will be able to see the concrete progress and deliverables he is asking for starting to take place. I say gently that he should welcome the progress and the constructive relationship that we have. I hope he does not have too long to wait for some more concrete outcomes, which are hugely important. We are taking the discussions on the reset forward, and they fall, essentially, into three categories—three pillars, if you like. The first is about foreign policy and a more structured defence co-operation. We have already made progress. The Foreign Secretary and the High Representative have already agreed on six-monthly foreign policy dialogues. That agreement is already in place and we will move further forward on that. The second category is about the safety of our citizens, so on judicial and law enforcement co-operation. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) challenges me on concrete progress and we have already increased the National Crime Agency presence at Europol. I visited Europol in opposition, as did the now Prime Minister and the now Home Secretary. We are determined to work more closely together on serious and organised crime—from the vile crime of people smuggling to issues such as fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking—to ensure that there is nowhere on our continent where criminals can find a place to hide from the force of the law. The third category is looking to make significant progress on trade and reducing trade barriers. We were elected on a manifesto with a very firm framework that we would not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement, but that manifesto contained examples of what we wanted to secure, which we have a mandate from the people to negotiate. That includes a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will reduce trade barriers significantly for agriculture and agri-food products, mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our services industries, and what we can do to make it so much easier for our touring artists to once again be able to tour the EU, and for European artists to come here. On those aspects that are within the trade and co-operation agreement as it stands, we will already have to move forward on negotiation. A good example of that is energy, where the trade and co-operation agreement is already putting an obligation on the UK and EU to look at how they operate the emissions trading scheme. There is a substantial agenda that the Government will be taking forward.

Since the election, I have seen and heard lots of evidence of more conversations happening between the UK and the EU than did over the previous few years, so I accept what you are saying about a rapprochement and a more positive engagement. You say that the Government are keen to increase trade—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but “you” is me; she means “he”, in other words the Minister.

I apologise, Sir Jeremy. The Government are saying that they want to increase trade with the European Union. Could the Minister comment on how helpful he thinks it is when suggestions are put forward by the European Union? Last week, for example, we had a suggestion of a pan-European Mediterranean customs agreement, which could benefit the just-in-time supply trade and complex manufacturing in this country, but was instantly dismissed by the Government. Would the Minister like to comment on how helpful he thinks that is?

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s descriptions of PEM as a customs agreement—that is not quite how it operates, or is meant to operate. Secondly, I observe that on the various proposals and comments, the Government will of course be expected to refer to their manifesto commitments, for which we have a mandate. I have always said constructively that of course, within our red lines, we will always listen to the proposals that the EU puts forward. That was the message the Government sent out. I also observe that my very constructive, positive relationship with Maroš Šefčovič is evidence of proposals going between us that are being very constructively received on both sides. Do not take my word for it: have a look at Maroš Šefčovič’s interview from last week where he was asked about his relationship with me and how that is going, and he was very clear about what a positive, different place it is in. The proof is in what is being said on both sides. Further, I am interested in this press on progress, because I took the time before coming to this debate to have a look at the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election, which included a four-step process. I would gently say that if we were doing a four-step process we might take significantly longer than has been taken.

First, our four-step process was about a much more comprehensive programme of engagement with the EU than what we are solely calling for today, which is a youth mobility scheme. Secondly, I put it to the Minister that since our manifesto was published back in June of last year, there has been substantial change in the global arena, in terms of trade and defence, with the re-election of President Trump in Washington, so naturally the environment has moved on since then. That is why we are now renewing and intensifying our calls for greater co-operation with the European Union, because we think that the issue is so much more pressing.

I will just say, first, that when the hon. Lady talks about a “comprehensive programme of engagement”, that is precisely what the Government have been engaging in. The hon. Lady is certainly right to observe that of course world circumstances change, and I am sure that that will be the case in the years ahead as well. However, what will not change is the Government’s prioritisation of deepening our trade links with the European Union. It is also really important to say that that is of mutual benefit—it is of benefit to the United Kingdom and it is of benefit to the European Union that we move forward together on this agenda. That is precisely what will happen over the next few months.

I know more than most how much work my right hon. Friend has been doing on this issue. As for rejoining the pan-European scheme, it already exists; it is not a bespoke scheme. On youth mobility, it would be very helpful for us to understand things from the Minister’s perspective, because there are a lot of issues to balance in the best interests of the British economy and British growth. May I bring him back to that point? When there are so many challenges in the world, it is wonderful to have UK leaders in Europe who do not question whether we are friend or foe to our colleagues there, but we also need to speak up for British interests. I hope he can set out a bit more about what he considers those to be.

My hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. It was a particularly low moment for the country when one of its Prime Ministers could not answer a question as to whether the French President was a friend or foe. France is our NATO ally, with huge and deep ties to us. The fact that we ever reached that point was, frankly, disgraceful. However, we are not in that position any more. We are very clear with our European friends and partners that our relationship with them is constructive and positive, and that we will make it even closer in the years ahead. That is hugely important. My hon. Friend also makes a really powerful point about national interests, because our national interests and those of European economies go hand in hand. This process is not some sort of zero-sum game. It is a negotiation—a set of discussions—from which both sides can mutually benefit. Let us take, for example, an SPS agreement, as seeking negotiations on that is one of our specific manifesto pledges. It works for and reduced barriers on both sides. That is good for businesses and the agricultural sector on the European continent, and it is good for the agricultural sector here in Britain. Cultural exchanges are also good for both sides, as is mutual recognition of professional qualifications in services. That is not just about our brilliant services exports; it is about those services that we can get from the European Union. I am conscious, Sir Jeremy, that this is a short Westminster Hall debate and we are coming to the last few moments. People-to-people contacts are hugely important; there is no doubt about that. Obviously, the previous Government eased the position regarding school trips, particularly with France. We have just indicated our reinvestment in the Turing scheme. There are also numerous deep people-to-people links with Europe right across the United Kingdom. As we have had this exchange across the Chamber many times, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that youth mobility was not part of the plans that the Government set out at the election. We have said that we will not go back to freedom of movement; that is a very clear red line. However, I approach the negotiations with the European Union in a constructive spirit. I, of course, will put forward and advocate for our national interests. It is, of course, for the EU to come forward with its negotiating position. Who knows whether points in the Financial Times on this matter are accurate or not? They may or may not be, but I look forward to these negotiations. This is going to be a really positive period in relationships between the UK and the EU, and I am sure we can come back with the deliverables that are being asked for by the hon. Lady and her colleagues. Finally, I am very grateful to you, Sir Jeremy, for your chairmanship of this debate.

I am grateful, too, to the Minister and to everyone who has contributed to the debate. Question put and agreed to.

11:30:00