Schools and Universities: Language Learning
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coussins
That this House takes note of measures, such as visa waivers, to improve the supply chain of qualified modern foreign language teachers and the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists which, along with the British Council and the British Academy, supports the APPG. I am a languages graduate myself in Spanish and French and a current student of Arabic at the FCDO’s excellent language centre.
My intention today is not just to stand here and recite complaints and problems about the teaching and learning of modern languages but to propose constructive, practical and achievable measures for repair and improvement. Neither will I go into great detail on the importance of languages, because I know that the Minister is already well aware of their value, not just as part of a balanced, enriching curriculum but for the benefit, security and prosperity of the UK as a nation. As the statutory guidance for the national curriculum says,
“Learning a language is ‘a liberation from insularity and provides an opening to other cultures’. It helps to equip pupils with the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life”.
I will cite only a very few facts and statistics to summarise this broad sweep of a case for languages before turning to the practicalities of the remedies.
First, research from Cambridge University has shown that, if we spent more on teaching French, Spanish, Arabic and Mandarin in schools, the UK could increase its export growth by £19 billion a year. Other research shows that the lack of language skills in the workforce costs the UK economy the equivalent of 3.5% of GDP. Secondly, students who have spent a year abroad building their international and cross-cultural experience as well as their language skills are 23% less likely to be unemployed after graduation. I am of course delighted that the UK will be rejoining Erasmus+, which was and will again be one important factor in the potential supply chain of MFL teachers.
Thirdly, it is a myth that everybody speaks English. On the contrary, only 5% of the world’s population are native English speakers and 75% speak no English at all. AI and machine translation are no substitute for human communication, with its nuance, slang, humour and accuracy, which trump AI tendencies to confuse and hallucinate, confuse numbers and names or fail to deal with dialects or tonal languages.
But the fact is that, however desirable we might make languages at school, and in whatever format they are prescribed or assessed, it is all meaningless if we do not have anyone to teach them. The teacher supply chain is the key to the sustainability of languages in schools and universities.
My focus today is on how to remedy the dramatic shortage of language teachers, how to cut through the vicious circle we are in, where GCSE take-up has stalled, so A-level take-up has fallen, so applications to do languages at university have plummeted, so more and more universities are scrapping language degrees and fewer and fewer potential UK-trained language teachers are being produced. It is like that song “There’s a hole in my bucket”, where you end up with the same problem you started with, despite having gone round and round in circles with a series of steps to mend it.
Even if every single one of the students currently doing a language degree went into teaching, we still would not come close to meeting the shortfall of qualified teachers. Only 43% of the Government’s recruitment target was met in 2024. Although the published target for 2025-26 has been 93% met, I am afraid this is only because the target itself was cut by nearly half—so not really anything to write home about.
We badly need a package of measures which does three things: first, removes the barriers which are preventing foreign nationals, especially EU nationals, training here to be MFL teachers; secondly, removes the barriers preventing foreign nationals who have completed that training in the UK going on to accept job offers; and, thirdly, improves the pipeline of homegrown MFL teachers.
This is a good point to indicate that very similar problems and solutions are also relevant for maths and physics teachers, where reliance on overseas recruitment is at least as great as for modern languages. Some of my proposals are within the remit not of the DfE but of the Home Office, but there could not be a better Minister to take up those issues with her colleagues there.
Issue number one is that nearly half the UK’s trainee language teachers are foreign nationals. But anyone would think we were trying to deter them, not encourage them. Bursaries have been reduced from £26,000 to £20,000 and scholarships from £28,000 to £22,000. The bursary does not always even cover the basic costs of the training fee for international students, which varies enormously between providers. In Cambridge this year, for example, it is nearly £40,000.
Universities often ask for half the fees in advance, but the bursary is paid in instalments, which leads to many students taking on debt in order to train. A recent report from the Institute of Physics revealed that some trainee physics teachers were resorting to sleeping in libraries and using food banks. The international relocation payment of £10,000 was scrapped in April 2024. So I ask the Minister whether she will restore the level of bursaries and scholarships and reinstate the relocation payment.
Once students are qualified, another set of obstacles appears. Instead of achieving a strategically sensible return on investment, we now make it as difficult as possible for the teachers we have trained to teach in a UK classroom. The problem now is visas and immigration rules. Overseas teachers must apply and pay for a skilled worker visa, together with the NHS surcharge. The school offering the job must also sponsor the visa, which comes at another cost.
The APPG has heard a great deal of evidence from schools reporting that they cannot or will not do that, because they do not have the funds or admin staff to deal with it. This is a critical problem. Despite the existence of DfE guidance, many schools say that the process of applying for the sponsor visa is unbelievably complicated and costly and, since the graduate visa route was reduced in duration to 18 months, it is no longer a viable route for early career teachers, whose induction period is two years. The official guidance is clearly not cutting through and must be made clearer, more effective and more upfront, because our data suggest that up to half of international trainees fail to secure employment after qualifying.
I have questions for the Minister on this aspect of the supply chain. Will she back a visa waiver for qualified MFL teachers recruited to teach in state schools and actively encourage the Home Office to introduce it? If it needs to be piloted first, will her department and/or Home Office colleagues provide rapid, streamlined guidance to schools on how to apply for the sponsor visa and reduce or relieve altogether the costs of doing so? Will she restore the graduate visa to 24 months so that it aligns with the induction period for early career teachers? These are all relatively low-cost, swiftly implementable measures whose impact could be easily and quickly evaluated. We are going to continue relying on overseas recruitment of MFL teachers until or unless we can produce more of our own. The immigration White Paper from last May sets out an expectation that employers will prioritise the so-called domestic workforce but, for MFL teachers, no adequate domestic workforce exists, because we produce so few graduate linguists. So a special case for a visa waiver must be made.
I turn finally to what can be done to improve the sustainability of languages in our schools and universities, to cut through the vicious circle I described earlier. Two immediate critical interventions could make an effective start. The first would be an advanced modern languages premium for secondary schools and colleges, modelled on the successful advanced maths premium introduced in 2017, the purpose of which would be to boost A-level take-up. The British Academy calculated in 2021 that achieving a 20% increase in the take-up of modern languages at A-level would cost around £3 million a year. The policy is widely supported across the sector. So, while the DfE is giving more thought to flexible languages pathways and GCSEs in response to the recent curriculum and assessment review, will the Minister at least commit to an advanced languages premium to boost A-levels as an immediate and hopefully even temporary measure? In combination with a visa waiver, this could be a quick win to help spark the chain reaction and step change we need.
More A-level take-up would lead to more applications to study languages at university, where language degrees are in crisis: in many cases, in terminal decline or already dead. They survive in only 10 post-1992 universities, and provision in the Russell group has already begun to crack with the recently announced plans from Nottingham. Cold spots reveal distinct inequality of provision towards students from less privileged backgrounds, which of course is compounded later by worse employability after graduation. Cuts in languages at HE level have a serious knock-on effect in economic, diplomatic and research competitiveness, as well as the teacher supply chain. Closures of courses in Mandarin, Russian and Arabic are a particular threat to the UK’s pipeline of specialist linguists needed for defence and security roles.
However, resuscitation is possible, as well as urgent. My key recommendation for an immediate measure to stem the tide of cuts and closures is for university modern language degrees to receive category C1 strategic funding from the Office for Students. Currently, as I understand it, its allocations focus mainly on STEM subjects, on the grounds that they are of strategic importance and cost more to provide. Archaeology also attracts this level of additional strategic funding. The same can, and must, be said of language degrees, which are more teaching intensive compared to other humanities subjects, requiring more contact hours, smaller classes, provision of new languages taught from scratch and, of course, the sustainability of the third year abroad, which is often described as “the jewel in the crown” of a languages degree and is very highly valued by prospective employers. Languages’ strategic importance to critical industries and functions of the state should be much better acknowledged by this additional funding. Does the Minister agree, and will she exert as much pressure and influence as she can on the OfS to take this on?
I have intentionally focused on a small number of measures which could be taken in the immediate and short term. My proposals also show that getting language teaching right is not just a challenge for the DfE but cuts across many government departments and agencies. The decline is currently very acute, but language skills are vital to so many aspects of the UK’s cultural, economic, soft-power and security interests that we really must not allow things to get past the point of no return. I beg to move.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this debate and acknowledge the enormous amount of work that she does through the APPG and any other channels to make sure that the question of modern languages teaching and learning remains as high on the agenda as it possibly can be.
Why does the teaching and learning of a modern foreign language matter? This debate is partly about the technicalities of improving the supply chain of modern foreign language teachers since, as we have already heard, 50% of modern languages teachers are now recruited from outside of the UK. However, there is a prior question: why does it matter? As we have also heard, figures from government suggest that there are economic and diplomatic, and so on, very good reasons, at both personal and GDP level, why we should have more and more young people who are proficient at languages. We have figures and research for the value of French and Spanish, but also increasingly German, not to mention Mandarin. Noble Lords will all have heard this from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and other places too, and other noble Lords may well expand on this.
These are very good reasons in themselves, but there is another set of reasons for learning a language, one of which is that learning a language is good for you. Many hours of research and research papers have shown that the plasticity of the brain is heightened by learning a language. It increases cognitive flexibility and adaptability, and these are clearly very good reasons and worth while for everyone—even in the later years, should any noble Lord choose to take up a language.
However, perhaps my favourite reason for learning a language is, frankly, that it is fun. With the right pedagogical approach, a classroom in which language teaching and learning is taking place is a fun classroom to work in. It is a real-world skill; it can be deployed, practised and improved by communicating with others in your classroom—from my own personal experience, often to the delight of young people. However, those young people miss out if there are not sufficient, or sufficiently well-trained and qualified, modern languages teachers with whom they can work.
Modern foreign languages have the reputation of being hard subjects because there is a perceived harshness in the marking compared with other subjects. That may or may not be true, but, frankly, we do not hear enough on the aspect that I am really enthusiastic about, which is the fun—although we do not hear a lot about fun in education in general.
This debate is about how to get our schools and universities out of the spiral of decline that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, talked about. It appears from government figures that there has been an improvement in ITT recruitment to modern and foreign language teaching. However, as the target was lower, and is still only 90% met, and as it comes against a background of very low levels of recruitment over previous years, there is still a great deal to do if we are to arrest the decline of modern language departments at university level.
If there is not a secure base of effective language teaching in key stages 4 and 5, we will continue to have this problem, and A-levels will continue to decline. Recently, a House of Commons committee reinforced the view that teaching is still insufficiently attractive in terms of burdensome workloads, and of course, there are pay level issues. This needs to be remedied. Given the number of modern languages teachers that we need, I ask my noble friend the Minister, as she has already been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, if the Government will reconsider a visa waiver scheme for non-UK trainees and teachers in recruitment. This would go a long way towards improving our position.
Perhaps what we also need is a national strategy. I hesitate to suggest this, because it seems to be the answer to almost anything that comes before government—“Let’s have a national strategy”—but I do think that it would be worth while. Certainly, we must urgently consider visa sponsoring and the material that schools need to be able to do that.
Finally, I ask my noble friend the Minister to look again at the issue of functional language skills teaching and qualification raised in the Education for 11-16 Year Olds Committee of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds)
My Lords, may I draw to everyone’s attention the fact that the timing in this debate is very tight? Could everyone please either go below five minutes or stick to the five minutes’ advisory time? Otherwise, we will not have time for the Minister to respond in full.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Baroness, Lady Coussins, on introducing this debate and also on her outstanding and continuing work on the importance of modern languages.
The well-known actor Larry Lamb, who is fronting the British Council’s new festival of languages this summer in London, recently said:
“English is the language of business but children and young people should understand the level of respect that comes when you attempt to speak the language of the people with whom you’re working”.
Mr Lamb criticised a 2004 decision by Charles Clarke, the then Education Secretary, to drop compulsory language learning from the age of 14. Mr Lamb also added, somewhat provocatively:
“I feel disappointed that the education system has allowed this to happen. I bet there aren’t many private schools where taking languages is a choice, particularly at the top end”.
It is true that the prospects for modern language learning are currently not good, but that is the responsibility of successive Governments and most certainly not the responsibility of Charles Clarke alone. Successive Governments have allowed this situation to develop.
GCSE entries in modern languages decreased from over 500,000 in 2004 to just over 330,000 in 2025. The proposed abolition of the EBacc does not help much, because languages will have to compete even more with other subjects when pupils are making choices. The DfE, over many years, has missed its targets for modern language trainee teachers. In 2025, only 42% of the target was reached.
A most shocking thing, which I had not realised, is that over half of all universities have ceased to offer modern language degrees altogether. Currently, only 48 do, compared to 108 in 2000. The consequence is obviously a strong decline in the number of qualified modern language teachers. As is always the case in education matters, without qualified and well-trained teachers, there is quite simply no education. My eye is upon the noble Baroness, Lady Blower.
Many years ago, in an earlier career, I set up a number of projects to teach French in primary schools, with tight and co-operative links to the appropriate secondary schools. We trained teachers and hired peripatetic staff and French assistants. Our strong in-service training included what became known locally, rather unfortunately, as “French weekends”. In this residential training, French was spoken throughout, French food was served and there were obviously quite a number of wine tastings. The whole scheme brought together primary and secondary teachers with the Alliance Française. It was a true languages pipeline, with stellar O-level and A-level results in languages as a consequence. This was one way of achieving that improvement.
More recently, a solution to the falling numbers of modern language teachers has been recruitment from overseas, as we have said. Precisely the issues involved with that approach are at the heart of this debate: 50% of trainees are recruited internationally; they get bursaries, but the cost of employing them and visa difficulties have presented other problems, not least that apparently, half the trainees go home when they cannot find a job here. Another stupid complication is that the duration of the graduate visa scheme has been reduced to 18 months, while the induction period for newly qualified teachers lasts for two years. That is not good co-ordination.
However, there are plenty of practical solutions, some of which will emerge from this debate. The idea that there should be a national languages strategy has already been mentioned. It is backed by the British Academy, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the Association of School and College Leaders, the British Council and Universities UK, which is quite a line-up. Another practical idea would be for the DfE or local authorities to set up local regional conferences where heads and teachers could share solutions, such as helplines and guidance on the visa system. I feel compelled to say that that is what we used to do.
There is strong consensus worldwide that effective communication between nations is more valuable and relevant now than it has ever been. The DfE itself said:
“Learning a language empowers young people to engage with the world, think critically and understand new perspectives”.
That is true, so I hope the Minister takes careful note not only of the excellent evidence provided by this debate but of the realistic and practical solutions that have already been proposed, when we are nowhere near the end of the debate.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am very sorry to intervene again but, if every noble Lord and noble Baroness takes an extra minute, we are not going to get through this debate in time.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on her brilliant introduction to this debate and I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. We are both alumni of St Hilda’s College, Oxford, and we are both passionate about languages.
As a child, I lived in Paris for three years. I studied French and Spanish at university, then lived in Germany for four years with my RAF husband and was employed to teach French and English in a German Gymnasium. It was quite a challenge. We had married too young for the RAF, so were not allowed to live in military married quarters and lived in a German town surrounded by German speakers. Although the head teacher always addressed me in French, I picked up a great deal of German. Sadly, as I seldom have a chance to speak other languages now, most of my fluency in all three languages has largely gone, but I still value the learning of them, the window on different worlds they gave me and the sheer enjoyment of chatting in a language that was not English.
It has to be a matter of deep concern that our country is becoming monolingual. At one stage it appeared that it was more difficult to get good GCSE and A-level grades in languages than in other subjects, and that was a deterrent to students. The exam boards addressed that to equalise the marking, but it was damaging. Of course, Brexit has greatly harmed our international relations. The demise of Erasmus was another blow. We have to hope that now Erasmus+ is to be restored, young people will once again enjoy travelling abroad and finding out about the languages and customs of other countries.
Damage was done under Labour when a language ceased to be compulsory for GCSE. The EBacc brought it back, but in a programme which was highly academic and ruled out many more creative students. As fewer students study languages, fewer go to university and emerge as enthusiastic teachers. It is a vicious circle which has seen universities close their language departments with further dire effects.
We need solutions. We rely heavily on international recruitment, yet put barriers in the way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, set out. Bursaries have been reduced and the difficulty of getting visas has prevented possible teachers getting jobs. Will the Minister say what is going to happen about bursaries and visas?
We need a strategy to boost language learning. Ideally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, set out, this should start at primary school when young minds are open and young mouths can develop to make the different sounds needed by different languages. If you do not start languages until secondary school, young people are already getting anxious about making new noises and talking with new words. Can the Minister say what is being done to encourage languages in primary schools? Some years back the British Academy ran competitions to find imaginative language learning in primary schools, with some schools focusing on food and some on drama, music or clothing to stimulate ideas, often with great success. What happened to those imaginative programmes?
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Languages, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, is a critical part, has had meetings where, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said, we have discovered that learning a language leads to increased cognitive flexibility and adaptability. Numerous studies have supported the claim that learning a second language affects a person’s brain, with differences depending on the age of the person when they learn the language. Who knew that languages are good for your health? They are also good for business, international relations and friendship between countries and peoples. We used to have diplomats who were totally fluent in obscure languages and able to contribute to a peaceful world by dint of communicating in native tongues. Where will they learn these languages now if university departments close?
We need also to support the Open University, which is the UK’s largest provider of university-level education across a variety of language-related subjects, including French, German, Spanish, Chinese and others. They have programmes at all levels of difficulty. Their studies are nearly all via flexible distance learning, so are widely available to anyone interested, and they have short courses and modules as well as full-time courses. Can the Minister say if the Government would support a new national strategy to incentivise language learning and teaching? Languages should be supported within the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to send a strong signal to employers and the public that they are a valuable tool in our country’s wealth and well-being. We cannot allow this drift to continue. Urgent action is needed if we are to remain an international country with trade and friends around the world. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coussins for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic and for her excellent and constructive introduction. As ever, I declare my interest as a secondary school teacher in Hackney, although I teach design technology rather than useful languages. At school I learnt French and Latin to O-level under the legendary Bill Lucas—let us see if the Minister is listening to that—some Greek and some German. In fact, a few years ago my son Charlie wandered into an airport shop to find me speaking to a woman in German. “I didn’t know Dad spoke German”, he said to my wife. “He doesn’t”, she said. “I don’t know what the hell he’s speaking.”
I respectfully take issue with my noble friend Lady Coussins in the framing of this debate. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, I think we need to discuss the sustainability of language learning in life. I am married to a fluent Italian speaker and early on in our relationship, I found it extremely frustrating to go out to Italy and not be able to understand or be understood, so I took private one-to-one lessons at the age of 30, unlike one of my noble friends who sensibly married his Italian teacher.
Over the next few years, I had a variety of tutors, all Italian and all excellent, and it is one of the most rewarding things I have ever done in my life. It was fun. There was no Duolingo then, and I still remain slightly dubious about that way of learning. Perhaps the parliamentary challenge will change my mind. I am now a reasonable Italian speaker and a keen member of the APPG on Italy. We recently had a visit to Rome with a full day and a half with the Italian parliament. I am rather more used to talking to Italian builders, and some of my language might have surprised our hosts.
We need to engender a love for languages and cultures among children. The government response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review says:
“Languages are a vital part of a broad and balanced curriculum, equipping pupils with the communication skills, cultural awareness and linguistic foundations needed to thrive in a globalised society”.
The elephant in the room is Brexit. It is not so much a hidden elephant as a large pink hippopotamus in a tutu sashaying down the aisle. As my former colleague and head of modern foreign languages, Adam Lamb, says:
“The historic pipeline for recruitment was not just from the UK universities, but also from Europe. Morale amongst MFL teachers has taken several big hits of late for many reasons. MFL has already taken the hard hit of having been decoupled from forming the spine of the EBACC measure. This, along with many departments struggling to recruit, is leading to fragmented departments and students receiving a lot of non-specialist cover teaching nationally”.
According to the British Council, as a nation we lose an estimated £48 billion per year in lost trade due to language barriers, to say nothing of the benefits of employability and social mobility that a basic skill in foreign language brings. The valuable English language summer school business has been hit as well. As Alicja Penrose of Bede’s told me:
“Since Brexit, any EU teachers who did not work in the UK pre 2021 are not able to secure work permits, which creates a shortage of teachers across the industry. There currently is no seasonal visa type for them that would allow them to work in the UK in the summer”.
The Government need to back up their fine words in the response to the review with action. Teaching vacancies need to be filled by language teachers who are specialists in the language that they are teaching. Visa waivers need to be granted to language teachers from abroad and, indeed, as they say, linguistic foundations need to be allowed to thrive in a globalised society.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is conventional in this House to congratulate the sponsor of a debate, and I will certainly not miss that out on the present occasion because it is high time that the plight of modern language learning and training in the UK was drawn to public attention and remedied. But I will go further on this occasion by congratulating my noble friend Lady Coussins on the unrelenting work she has done through the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages to shine a light on what is, I suggest, an act of national self-harm.
Is there really a problem with modern language teaching and learning? Well, there is not much doubt about that. Others have already quoted figures, and others in this debate will quote figures, to demonstrate the scale of the crisis, but here are some of those produced on 16 December by the Higher Education Statistics Agency—HESA. From the academic year 2012-13 to the academic year 2023-24, the overall figures for modern languages dropped from 125,900 to 80,100; those for French from 9,700 to 3,700; and those for German and Scandinavian languages from 3,900 to 1,400. It is important to remember that where the drop in university places leads to closures, what are called “cold spots” occur at GCSE and A-level too.
Those figures should be a wake-up call to the Government and to Parliament. Other figures from the sector are equally dire, such as those for the Anglo-French programme for the exchange of teaching assistants in both directions for a year teaching in each other’s schools. It has just celebrated—if that is the right word—its 120th anniversary, which I attended. It was set up to mark the entente cordiale, but the figures are terrible. Some will question whether this really matters in a world where English has become—and I actually welcome this—the global lingua franca, although not, of course, the language of the majority of the population of the world. It is set to remain so for the rest of this century, and perhaps longer.
That is certainly a fact of life, and we are rightly proud of our language—its versatility, its flexibility, and the access it provides to much great literature. But is it in our interest to fly along on the coattails of the United States—which is what, in fact, we are doing—and to have less and less knowledge of, or access to, other great civilisations, many but not all by any means, in continental Europe? I would suggest not: not in business, not in trade, not in academic terms, not in the conduct of international relations, and not in the in-depth understanding of other societies.
If we are, over time, to remedy this situation, we need an overall multifaceted set of policies by government, by schools and by universities. Several recent Governments have aspired, and have announced their aspiration, to initiate such policies, but, frankly, they have then acted only in a half-hearted sort of way—often seriously underresourced, and often also with other government policies necessary for success contradicting university needs for visa access to fulfil their international student and other academic studies. It is surely time for a more systematic, better co-ordinated, better concerted effort. I do hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, will commit the Government to undertaking such an effort.
Anyway, we have one element of such a programme already, which can be warmly welcomed: the decision by the UK, agreed by the EU, to rejoin the Erasmus+ programme in 2027, reversing the damage done when we intemperately pulled out of that programme after the Brexit vote, unlike plenty of other third countries which remain in the programme. However, look at the school visit programme: laid low by Brexit and Covid, it has still not recovered properly, despite the agreements reached between the Prime Minister and President Macron and the Prime Minister and Chancellor Merz to resume them on a bilateral basis. The restraints on collective visas for school visits to the UK make no sense whatever. Is there any evidence of illegal migration by that route? Perhaps the Minister can explain why it is taking so long to resume those school visit programmes.
The one thing we cannot afford to do as a nation that has for centuries thriven on international trade and investment, is to withdraw into a kind of monoglot ghetto, whose leading politicians complain about hearing nothing but foreign languages on public transport.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Order. Can the noble Lord wind up, please? He is already a minute over. If everyone takes an extra minute, the Minister will not have any time to sum up at the end.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
We should be looking at modern languages, with both teaching and learning as a means of promoting our soft power and influence, not as something we could perfectly well do without.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I am very impressed by these attempts to maintain order in the classroom, and I will try to stay under five minutes.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on bringing this debate to the House, and like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, am delighted that the Government are rejoining Erasmus+. We should, however, confront the fact that when it comes to Erasmus, the Brexiteers have a point. Erasmus was designed and assumed to be an exchange programme in which there would be roughly balancing flows of students between different countries, justifying the fact that they had taxpayer-financed education whichever country they went to. However, in reality, there were very large inflows of students into the UK through Erasmus, but, sadly, modest outflows of students, so Erasmus was a cost for the UK. Can the Minister therefore explain to the House whether the Government are doing anything in this new agreement to ensure a better balance of flows in and out of the UK? Does she agree that it is particularly important that we do more to get British students, of whatever age, studying and working in placements and internships abroad? That is the best way of solving this problem. For that, the programme needs to be properly managed. Sadly, one of the other difficulties we had with the Turing scheme was the uncertainty and failures in competent management. The sooner we can say that the British Council will have a leading role in delivering these programmes, in both directions, the greater the chance we have of something that is successful.
I declare an interest as I serve on the board of the Centre for British Studies at Humboldt University in Berlin—perhaps one of the remaining uses of my rusty A-level German. At Humboldt University, we try to send students on a combined programme of study and work placements in the UK. Since Brexit, that has been a lot harder. I very much hope that, now we are rejoining Erasmus+, that will be more feasible again. However, the students in Berlin are not simply German nationals; they come from elsewhere. Will this arrangement cover German universities regardless of where the students come from, or will the arrangement be restricted to the subset of students at the Centre for British Studies who are German or other EU citizens? It would be very helpful to hear from the Minister on that. I hope she may agree that if specific issues like this arise, I can write to her and take her through the issues and problems that we face.
I want to end on one wider point. We have heard some bold claims about the study and teaching of modern languages being fun. I hope that that is the case; it is a great argument to deploy. However, I personally find that an argument that is particularly persuasive with Ministers used to hard-headed assessments of economic benefits and returns to the UK, and who often focus very much, therefore, on STEM subjects as those with the greatest utility and practical value, is that when they or the media sit around considering a crisis anywhere in the world, we assume in the UK that we have a window on the world. We always assume that we have an expert who speaks the language, that we have a historian who knows the background to whatever crisis or political problem. We assume that our security agencies have the capacity to track what is going on—but, as we know, in order to pass security vetting, people need to have had a family history of living in the UK, which enables their security to be established. It is that window on the world that depends, ultimately, on British people studying a wide range of foreign languages. If we lose that, our capacity to engage in the world—including the most practical forms necessary for our own national security—is eroded. I hope, then, that during this debate, we develop a long list of arguments for modern languages, and that alongside the fun, alongside the culture and alongside the economic benefits, we will not forget the practical security angle as well.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate, and more importantly for her tireless leadership in this subject.
I think that I will have to be the first to confess that I have a Duolingo addiction, but I know that a charming app—however motivating—cannot replace a great teacher or the cultural cognitive fluency that real language learning develops. The point I wanted to double-click on today is that in the age of AI, this truth becomes even sharper.
AI will help us with language, but it cannot replace human linguistic capability. If anything, it makes that idea more strategically important. There is an attractive thought that, because machine translation is improving so rapidly, we can ease off—we will not need to learn languages because every single thing programmed into our iPhones, our iPads and even our ears will help us understand somebody standing in front of us. But AI does not read intent. It cannot interpret ambiguity, does not appreciate humour, cannot decode face-saving formulations or detect the veiled threats on which diplomacy often turns. In a world where a mistranslated phrase can ricochet globally in minutes, the risk is not just error; it is the amplification of misinterpretation.
The security community is already acknowledging this. The British Academy warns that declining UK language capability risks leaving us “lost for words”. The US Government Accountability Office describes foreign language skills as “increasingly key” to diplomatic, military and counterterrorism missions. Britain is not a serious country if it speaks only English. Nor are we serious about growth, as others have already said. The economic case is clear. Our SMEs, which I remind you make up 99.9% of all firms, are markedly more competitive internationally when they have language skills. Studies show that they are around 30% more successful in exporting. We need this now more than ever. If we neglect national language capacity, we limit national economic reach.
However, we have a solution working at scale which has not yet been mentioned. At the Open University, where I am chancellor, the School of Languages and Applied Linguistics is the largest provider of university-level language learning in the UK. It reaches adults at higher education cold spots: workers retraining in mid-career, carers studying at night—people who need genuinely flexible routes back into language learning. In the age of AI, this model is not just educationally valuable; it is economically strategic. With the right incentives, the lifelong learning entitlement could make language study a normal part of adult upskilling across the country.
I end with three brief questions to the Minister which I hope will reinforce what others have already asked. First, will the Government reduce the recruitment barriers facing overseas language teachers? Secondly, will they streamline sponsorship routes for corporates for international teachers? Thirdly, will they commit to a refreshed national languages strategy linked explicitly to the lifelong learning entitlement?
AI will transform how we work with languages, but it cannot replace the human ability to understand nuanced content and intent. Investing in languages is not nostalgic; it is strategic. For my part, if I have learnt one thing in researching for this debate, it is that I now urgently need to get a real-life Spanish teacher.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate and for her comprehensive and thoughtful introduction. Like others, I admire her perseverance in ensuring that we do not lose sight of the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.
The economic security and other personal benefits of learning and speaking a second language have already been articulated in this debate, so I will not repeat them. It is clear, however, that we need urgent, concerted and co-ordinated action—from primary schools through to universities and beyond—to address the inadequate, long-standing and worsening supply of language learning and teaching skills needed to meet our future needs. It is also clear is that we need a joined-up and holistic approach that is coherent across education and skills systems. While the Government have ambitious reforms to address teacher shortages, their immigration policies risk undermining them, particularly in regard to MFL and, as we have heard, in maths and physics.
The reduction of the graduate visa route from 24 to 18 months creates a structural barrier to retention where international trainees are most needed. The 18-month limit creates a structural misalignment where international trainees will be forced to leave before completing their two-year early career framework induction, unless their school sponsors them through a skilled worker visa, which many schools are unwilling to do due to the cost and complex process.
International trainees have historically played a vital role in plugging this gap due to under-recruitment at secondary level, where EU-trained teachers once formed a significant proportion of the workforce. This is a serious misalignment. Without aligning the policies, we risk losing valuable talent and wasting public investment. Coherence between Department for Education recruitment targets and Home Office immigration policies is needed to sustain this, particularly in the short term.
Given the shortage of UK language graduates, do the Government have any plans to remove the hurdles, such as increased fee costs, NHS charges, visas and reduced financial support, which trainee language teachers face? Are they planning to introduce visa waivers for teachers, as has been well argued during the course of this debate? We know that, due to the hurdles, it is estimated that half of international trainee teachers leave. Bursaries are there, but they are not much use if other hurdles act as disincentives. They are, in fact, a waste of investment.
If we do not act now, we risk the collapse of homegrown language teachers. While it is right that in the long term we should be aiming to create our own pipeline, it is important that in the short term we do whatever we can to sustain this sector to help provide a platform on which we can build a long-term strategy.
While we deal with the immediate shortage in order to avert the collapse of language learning and teaching, it is imperative that in the longer term we develop a long-term strategy. It should set out a long-term pipeline of language skills which links to education and economic and diplomatic needs, and gives departments a single framework to work to. Short-term fixes are absolutely essential, but long-term strategies are equally important to obviate the need for short-term fixes in the future.
There are of course other steps that the Government can take. For example, should the Government be raising awareness of the value of language learning for personal growth and cognitive development? I suggest that we might even look at universities providing joint degrees with other subjects, so that we do not have to close language departments. Other suggestions have been made and I very much look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a visiting professor at King’s College London and chairman of FutureLearn. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, set out in her introduction to this important debate, languages are a strategic asset for an outward-facing country such as the UK, yet we have essentially adopted an approach of benign neglect. It is surely telling, for example, that this Government’s industrial strategy does not contain a single reference to languages. This is not unique; every single iteration of the industrial strategy since Brexit has also essentially neglected to mention languages as a key component of our economic performance.
When it comes to engaging with the big emerging powerhouses of the global economy, it is not surprising that we find ourselves hobbled by this linguistic weakness. I think we can all agree that our export performance gives no grounds for complacency. Initiatives such as World of Languages show that there is no shortage of curiosity about global languages in our schools, but, as we have heard in this debate, the pipeline through school into university and beyond is clearly broken.
Take Mandarin as an example of where we could clearly do better. For obvious reasons, given China’s importance to the global economy, national security and other matters, countries such as the US and Australia have designated Mandarin as a strategic or priority language and support it accordingly. By contrast, no equivalent strategic designation exists in this country and, tellingly, there is no certainty beyond this financial year over the funding for the valuable Mandarin Excellence Programme delivered by University College London’s Institute of Education, in partnership with the British Council.
As we have heard this afternoon, teacher supply in schools is a major constraint, as is the fact—as with other languages—that the curriculum content is seen as hard to access for many non-heritage students. The end result is a shrinking flow into universities, leaving the UK unable to produce China-capable graduates at scale. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned some other key statistics, but those for China are particularly striking. Just 685 UK students enrolled in China studies degrees or other degrees with a China content in 2023-24, which was down 20% in a decade—a period during which we cannot say that China’s significance has diminished.
I will end with three short questions for the Minister. Like others, I welcome rejoining Erasmus+. But, on its own, as a Europe-focused programme, it is clearly very limited, for capacity reasons, in the extent to which it supports the lived study-abroad experiences that underpin learning of vital non-European languages. Will the Minister ensure that a genuinely global route, such as Turing, will continue to sit alongside Erasmus post our rejoining it in 2027?
Secondly, my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, mentioned the lifelong learning entitlement as a possible way to promote language learning. I fear that the Government are missing a trick with the lifelong learning entitlement, because of their restrictive, STEM-oriented approach to eligibility for this important funding stream. Will the Minister ensure that foreign language modules are eligible for LLE funding, so that more people can build language skills flexibly over time?
Finally, like the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar, Lady Blower and Lady Lane-Fox, I urge the Minister and the Government to think more strategically. If the Government really want to show that they take these issues seriously, will she ensure that the next update to the industrial strategy clearly designates languages as a long-term strategic capability for the country?
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on initiating this debate. I would like to focus on the second part of the Motion, on the sustainability of language learning in schools and universities.
We have to start with the question of why you should learn a foreign language. If the desire to learn a foreign language is diminishing, that is problematic. Most of us, with few exceptions in this Chamber, will have grown up at a time when it was obvious why you would want to learn a foreign language. If you wanted to go anywhere, English was spoken in some parts but, however hard you worked and however loud or slowly you spoke, it still was not understood, so you had to do something about it. We then had huge movements of people and lots of people’s parental language was not the language of the country they grew up in.
But all that has changed. There is diminishing strength and movement in the reason why you should learn a foreign language, particularly if you are an English-speaking monoglot. The fact is that polyglots are in the majority in the world; it is just the English speakers who get stuck with their single language. Globally, there are far more non-native English speakers than native ones.
Allow me to just acknowledge the practical purposes of learning a foreign language. The noble Baroness, Lady Cousins, reminded us only in the past 12 months, when we talked about the Criminal Justice Board, about the need for court translators and interpreters, who are incredibly important in the ability to deliver justice. There are other areas, but I want to briefly move away from the utility argument, although I do so with real hesitation because the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, will be speaking after me and, if I get this theologically wrong, I ask him to please correct me.
It is 500 years since William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament. By bringing together Hebrew and Greek terms, he coined the word “atonement”, which was fundamental to the Reformation. Its root is “at-one-ment”. Such concepts and ideas have enormous impacts in history, and understanding language and its power, and the acquisition of a foreign language or another language from your native one—which in reverse allows you to understand your own language better—is such a fundamental part of the human condition.
Having looked 500 years back, I would like to look 100 years ahead, when I think English will be dominant as the lingua franca. If you work for a large multinational company in mainland Europe and you have a business meeting, it requires only one person on that call to not have the native language of the country in which you are based for the meeting to be held in English, even though there may be people around the table who would be much more comfortable in another language.
This is one of the very few occasions when I would like to come back in 100 years and hear what that majority English globally will sound like. We might find that the English as spoken in the British Isles would be classified as some strange form of a modern foreign language. That is why I think that ownership of that language is enormously important.
The key thing that I urge on the Minister is that valuing a foreign language has to start at home. I declare my interest as First Civil Service Commissioner. Why does not even the diplomatic service recruit on the basis of language skills? Why is it that we recruit fast streamers with language skills—probably because of family background—and do not recognise that?
On a final point, we have huge populations in which the main language spoken, as you can see from the 2001 census, is Urdu, Gujarati or Hindi. For families that are multilingual, as in Birmingham where I was an MP, or in cities like Leicester, if you have a certificate our system does not actually recognise that second language as a qualification. Within our institutions, we need to value language and its utility much more, as well as looking—when it is based on populations, need and workplace—to be just that bit more imaginative. Just thinking that we need more foreign language teachers, and saying that is great because it allows us to buy a cup of coffee everywhere, is not sufficient.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for initiating today’s debate and speaking so eloquently that in many ways her speech alone will have given the Minister plenty of questions to answer. I pay tribute also to the work she has done as chair of the APPG—and so much more, because modern foreign languages are so important, yet they are so undervalued.
I declare an interest as a Cambridge academic, where I teach European politics. At times, having fluency in other modern foreign languages is useful, because I can say to my students, “Yes, it’s alright if you let me have that in German or French—I can read it”. But also in the last academic year, I was a HESA statistic. During lockdown I decided, having refreshed my French, German and a bit of Italian, that maybe I should try a language that I had not tried before—Spanish. In a sense, it was a very easy thing to do because, if you have some Italian, French and Latin, Spanish is quite easy. I went from beginners through to C1 level. Cambridge in its wisdom has now decided that, if you are studying C1, you get a diploma, so I now have a nice university certificate. They said that it meant they had to register me with HESA, because it was a level 4 qualification.
I am one of the few people studying at what counts as university level who is doing it in my spare time, alongside large numbers of undergraduates, postgraduates and junior researchers at Cambridge, who have realised that doing a modern foreign language is really important. My university is one of those that still understands the importance of modern foreign languages; we have an excellent department of modern foreign languages, and a centre that allows many people in the university and beyond to learn a language ab initio.
We are in a minority, yet one piece of information we were given in the excellent Library briefing was the concern of schools that Russell Group universities may not value modern foreign languages. That should not be seen to be the case; modern foreign languages at A-level are really important. One thing that we need to do is to remind students and teachers that language learning is important. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, that it can be fun, but it is also a vital life skill. We assume that somehow, you do languages for GCSE or A-level, tick a box and move on, but it is not necessarily the same as some other qualifications, because these are life skills which you can use not just at 15 or 18 but throughout your life.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed out, we should be thinking about modern languages as not just things that people study at school but as part of lifelong learning. What thought has the Minister given to people having the opportunity to learn languages at various stages? Yes, primary schools are important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, said. It is much better to learn a language at nursery or primary school than in your 50s—as I tried to do recently—but the opportunity to learn those languages is important.
The previous Government felt that modern foreign languages were important for the economy, or because they enhance other academic skills. However, they are also important not just for diplomacy in the formal sense, which the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, talked about, but for the ability for us to connect interculturally. Yes, other people might speak English, and they might speak English to us in the room, but they will speak their own language in the margins. If we can speak those languages as well, our communication and depth of experience will be so much stronger. Will the Government pledge to increase the opportunities for people at all stages of life?
Lord Chartres (CB)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coussins not only for securing this debate but for the very constructive way in which she introduced the subject.
I was very struck by the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about the limitations of mere mechanical translation. I recall a debate on regional assistance funding in the EU, in which there was reference to enormous and complex problems being solved by “la sagesse normande”. The English translation was:
“All problems will be solved by Norman Wisdom”.
Mechanical translation misses so much of the nuance.
I want to underline things that have already been said, but I also note that the interim report on the national curriculum, which was published last year, deemed language education to be the furthest away from the principles that informed the review: that the curriculum should be coherent, knowledge-rich and inclusive. It was the furthest away. In the Government’s response to the conclusions of the report, which was very constructive, there is support for a much clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools.
My fundamental question, which echoes comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, is how precisely are the Government going to substantiate that aspiration for a clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools? That is not only European languages, because I take the point made around the House about the vital importance of the very large numbers of non-European languages spoken in our schools, which give us an enhanced view of the world.
I am thinking particularly of a remarkable school in Harrow, Saint Jérôme Church of England Bilingual School. It was quite deliberately named after a translator, because that primary school not only teaches modern languages as a subject; it delivers a large part of the curriculum in French. It is a bilingual school. When the Government are looking at how to create a much clearer focus on the provision of languages in primary schools, I hope that it will be possible to look at that school’s experience of over 10 years.
I had the privilege of opening that school 10 years ago. The founding headmaster, the Reverend Daniel Norris, is just about to retire after enormous achievement. The experience of and results achieved in a school where 80% of the pupils have a mother tongue other than English that they speak at home are a valuable indication of what can be done to lay the foundations of constructive language learning at a primary level.
In the myth of the Tower of Babel—I am encouraged by the invocation of William Tyndale by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart—multilingualism, the confusion of tongues, is regarded as a punishment for human presumption. We should realise that, at Pentecost, in the New Testament, that is overturned. At Pentecost, multiple languages are not erased but everybody is enabled to listen, in their own language, profoundly to what is being said. It is a total mythological reversal. I hope that we are not going to slump back into trying to answer the Tower of Babel by insisting on monoglot English as a culture for the entire world. Language is not only desirable for boosting trade but helps people to listen well. We are very concerned about social divisions and atomisation in our society, and listening well is a basic factor in democracy.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, who predictably gave us a unique perspective for this debate. We are very fortunate to have so many illustrious speakers in this debate and, in particular, two first-class bookends, if I may call them that. We have the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who I know from working with her on the APPG is a tireless and tenacious campaigner and advocate for this, and the closing bookend is the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, who is a heavyweight Minister in this House. She is a former senior Cabinet Minister and has ministerial clout. We are looking for that ministerial clout in this debate today.
We all know that the whole position and state of the teaching and learning of modern languages in this country is in crisis. We know that there is a downward spiral of fewer pupils learning them, fewer teachers coming in, fewer graduates coming out of our universities, and fewer courses and faculties at universities. As my noble friend Lady Shephard, said, it was not helped by the decision that Charles Clarke made in 2004.
The Prime Minister has said in his own words that he wants to put Britain back on the world stage and to reset our relationship with Europe. It is worth quoting briefly what the Times said on this, when it talked about the fact that a nation that speaks only English
“limits Britain’s ability to do business, understand our neighbours, broaden our views and make lasting friendships with those beyond our borders”.
That is of course true. As other speakers, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Blower and Lady Garden, have said, there are the wider advantages of improving and helping with learning, memory, mental faculties and so on.
My noble friend Lord Willetts referred to the Treasury approach to these things and its very hard-headed approach to taking decisions. These things are difficult to measure, which is why the Treasury has enormous difficulty. The Treasury simply cannot measure common sense and it does not know how to put it into its calculations. I hope, again, that the Minister will be an advocate when she deals with other government departments.
I understand the difficulty—the Minister will understand this better than anybody—of competing subjects jostling for position in a very crowded curriculum. I have had many discussions about this with my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who, as we all know, is a great advocate for engineering, science and technology. Of course, in the modern world these are very important, but if you talk to employers who are recruiting young people, you find that they recognise that there are downsides, sometimes, of technology, in that many of the people they recruit are not always as good as they should be at communication and find it more difficult to express themselves clearly and succinctly. Again, that is one of the big advantages of learning a foreign language.
I come back to the Minister. There have been, in this debate, a whole range of proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and from other speakers. I am sure the Minister has a very good speech which will tell us everything that the Government are currently doing, but I hope she will take the opportunity to commit herself to further action in a positive way. Many proposals have come forward, and I hope she will be able to give us some comfort that there is more action to be taken by the Government.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, we are all immensely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this important debate. Her Motion rightly draws attention to the supply chain for qualified modern foreign language teachers and to practical measures, such as visa waivers, that could help sustain language learning in our schools and universities. These measures may sound, as she said, technical, but they go to the heart of whether we are serious about languages as a national priority.
I argue, as other noble Lords have already highlighted, that the debate is about more than teacher supply alone. Language learning is not an optional enrichment or a narrow skills issue; it is a form of living cultural infrastructure. Just as roads enable the movement of goods and digital networks enable the flow of data, languages enable the circulation of ideas, values and relationships. When that infrastructure weakens, the consequences are not abstract but cultural, diplomatic and economic.
We increasingly recognise that infrastructure is not confined to concrete and cables. The British Academy, in its 2025 report on social and cultural infrastructure, argues that such systems underpin social cohesion, resilience and long-term prosperity, and deserve the same seriousness we afford to transport or broadband. Language learning belongs squarely in that category. It enables participation, mutual understanding, and the circulation of ideas across borders and communities. Without it, our cultural life becomes thinner, our diplomacy weaker and our global engagement more fragile.
Professor Li Wei, of UCL’s Institute of Education, has described language learning as fundamentally a “process of cultural translation”. By this, he does not mean a mechanical exercise but an active negotiation of meaning between people, histories and values. Through that process, learners develop creativity, critical thinking, and cultural and sociolinguistic sensitivities—qualities essential not only to education but to civic life and international co-operation. Language classrooms are, in effect, places where cultural understanding is practised daily. This matters profoundly for the UK’s place in the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, so eloquently emphasised in his speech.
A recent British Council survey shows a six-point fall in the UK’s overall international attractiveness in 2025. That should concern us. Yet the same research offers reassurance, with trust in the UK remaining high and engagement indicators recovering. We are still widely perceived as a reliable, value-driven actor—no small advantage in a fractured and volatile global landscape.
However, trust is not self-sustaining and reputation is not self-renewing. Both depend on sustained investment in the relationships, programmes and people that build familiarity and understanding across borders. Language teachers are precisely such people. They are cultural ambassadors in every classroom, shaping how future generations understand the world—and how the world understands us. When fragmented immigration policy makes it harder to recruit and retain them, when visa waivers that could ease critical shortages are dismissed, and when international trainees are forced to leave just as they are ready to contribute, we are not merely adjusting administrative rules but dismantling infrastructure that serves our strategic interests.
Language learning sits at the intersection of education, culture and diplomacy. To neglect it is to weaken all three at once. So yes, we should examine visa waivers and policy coherence, but with a broader ambition in mind: to recognise language learning as the strategic cultural asset it truly is, vital to our schools and universities, and to invest in it accordingly for returns that are social, cultural and enduring.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I also express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate and for her tireless work over so many years in support of language training and related issues.
As many have pointed out, we are living in an international and, in particular, business environment dominated by English in various forms. This, we must recognise, inevitably leads to a lack of interest in foreign languages, particularly among the young, in the UK and more widely in the English-speaking world. To do nothing about this, even at the best of times, is surely short-sighted; as has been pointed out, it is widely recognised that the UK needs foreign language proficiency to enhance our economic prosperity, global competitiveness and general political, diplomatic and cultural engagement in the world. To do nothing about it in today’s world is not just short-sighted but positively misguided, a point to which I will come back.
Retaining and improving our national foreign language proficiency can be achieved only by investing sustainably over time in an effective modern language programme in the wider educational curriculum. There is clear evidence of a worrying decline over recent years in foreign language learning, particularly at A-level and at university. There is also plenty of evidence that this decline is to a large extent caused by teacher shortages. We have the vicious circle—what others have called the spiral of decline.
Short-term fixes are available and, to be fair, the Government have recognised the need for action with financial incentives, apprenticeship schemes, and talk about recruitment and retention measures. The decision to rejoin Erasmus next year is hugely welcome. It may over time increase the attractiveness of European languages, both as subjects to be studied and as a teaching career. However, it seems odd in this context that other quick wins described by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, such as a visa waiver programme, are not being pursued or followed up.
In all this, as so many other speakers have mentioned, there seems little evidence of any sense of a long-term strategy to address what is, in effect, a language learning crisis in the United Kingdom. Perhaps it is a cost issue, but surely we are talking of reasonably small sums in the wider education budget. To have a comprehensive strategy, as so many have called for, would hardly be a huge shift of education spending priorities. It is difficult to avoid concluding that addressing what is, in effect, a crisis is somehow low on the Government’s priorities. As I said earlier, this seems positively misguided at this moment in time. Every day’s news reminds us that we live in the increasingly unstable and unpredictable world that is so often mentioned in this Chamber.
In my view, this debate needs also to be seen in this context, as well as many others. A small but vital element in the wider security picture is a priority to invest in the nation’s foreign language proficiencies. For example, our ability to work alongside our European allies, understand the complexities of the Middle East, trade effectively in Asia and penetrate the thinking of those who wish us harm depends, in part, on this. The cost must be comparatively small. I urge the Government to give language teaching the priority it deserves.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, it is already clear at this late stage in the debate that a very strong case has been made for action to be taken to ensure the sustainability of language learning and the supply of qualified foreign language teachers in our schools and universities. In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this debate and for dealing, with her customary thoroughness, with practical ways to move forward with the issues, I shall therefore try to devote my five minutes to the sustainability theme.
Nevertheless, I first make clear my support for the noble Baroness’s suggestions. In addition, I acknowledge the co-operation received from various embassies and other organisations, mainly voluntary ones. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, we were able to celebrate 120 years of the language assistants programme between the UK and France, and there has also been a very good Spanish embassy project in this field. But, of course, both are affected by the current visa, and other, restrictions.
Will the Minister consider a partnering arrangement, similar to that of the funding of development projects by the FCDO, which aims to match funding raised by voluntary organisations with departmental funding? It seems a very good way of bringing the public and private sectors together. I also acknowledge the work of the APG on Modern Languages, so admirably co-chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and so efficiently moved forward by its secretariat.
In looking to the sustainability of language teaching and learning, I wish to focus on the role of edtech—not to replace traditional teachers, but to aid and support them. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has already referred to this. Here, I must declare an interest as the honorary president of BESA, the British Educational Suppliers Association, and a promoter of the Bett, the British Educational Training and Technology Show, where last year, 35,000 attendees from over 125 countries came together to share ideas and shape the future of learning. Anyone who has attended one of these annual exhibitions will realise what support and time-saving can be given to teachers in all subjects—but this is especially evident in language learning. The example of Duolingo has already been referred to in this context. This year, the Bett will take place at the Excel Centre between 21 and 23 January. I thoroughly recommend a visit for anyone who may, like me, not be fully conversant with all the possibilities and advantages that the use of edtech can bring, especially to teachers. Is the Minister planning a visit to this year’s Bett exhibition?
In 1988, when, as the then Lords Minister in the Department for Education, among other things I was taking the Education Reform Bill through the House of Lords. That Bill introduced the national curriculum. We had many discussions in the department about the need to include modern languages as a core subject. I would never have dreamt that 38 years later, we would still be discussing the value of and need for language learning as a tool and skill.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I, too, give thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this debate, and for her powerful introduction and sensible proposals.
We have all welcomed the reinstatement of the Erasmus+ programme, but, as universities will tell you, it will take a good 10 years to reverse the adverse effects of foolishly stopping it. Even before it ceased, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, pointed out, it was easier to attract students from the continent to come to universities here than to find students from our universities wanting to spend time abroad, especially in the sciences, because their lack of basic language skills was the main deterrent. So, we are talking about a long-term problem here.
The recent figures from the Higher Education Policy Institute have highlighted what a shocking situation this is. We have to keep repeating that the decision back in 2004 to remove the compulsory status of modern languages from the national curriculum meant a dramatic reduction in GCSE take-up. That, coupled with the important emphasis on STEM subjects, has further marginalised modern languages.
There has been little recognition of the future economic importance of global trading partners in India, Turkey, South America, China and the Far East, even though the Labour Party itself drew attention to this back in 2015. We are very well positioned, because of our large Asian and Turkish communities, to study those languages through which we are most likely to benefit economically. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, has already mentioned, we have failed in schools to recognise and encourage bilingual children in some of these rarer foreign languages. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, laid out the proposals, and the Government should surely change their attitude to understanding the importance of languages as both a route to other cultures and to build bridges that lead to economic success.
We have talked about teachers coming from abroad, how important they are and what needs to be done. But one of our problems is the way we treat all migrants, which militates against welcoming them. The national political debate is itself a deterrent to anyone coming here. In this respect, though, visa waivers and some of the other proposals are very important.
I did school French and German and enjoyed them very much, but I was never particularly brilliant at them. I then worked for the World Health Organization, which asked me to go as a consultant to the beautiful little food manufacturing town of Piacenza, in the Po Valley in Italy, back in the 1980s, where the local authority wanted to improve the health and social care of older people. The WHO wisely insisted that I take a lengthy immersion course in Italian, so that I could engage in some basic discussions with the delightful Communist mayor and his incredibly forward-looking team. My life was transformed. I fell in love with Italy, of course, and the Italians, and eventually bought a home there. Forty years later I am still learning Italian, and Italian friends are laughing at my mistakes. I would like to think that every state school child here could have their eyes opened to lives beyond these shores, because perhaps it would change our currently depressing national conversations, and the conversations would be different.
Modern languages teaching can be fun, as has been stressed. We would like to see everybody having the opportunity to see other people, to visit, and to get to have some of that fun. To the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, I would like to stress that I too was addicted to Duolingo, but only a few months ago I managed to wean myself off, because the pings were driving me crazy. I will offer her treatment in mental health ways of getting rid of that addiction if she would care to. Duolingo is a start. It is a help in refreshing, but it does not substitute for that wonderful involvement we get through travelling abroad.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I add still more congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this debate on such an important topic; that is clear right across the House. I pay tribute to her for her long-standing and resolute championing of modern language teaching and much, much more.
I will speak to the business case. My career has been in shipping—arguably the most international of businesses, transporting cargos all over the globe. English is the lingua franca of maritime business, employed in the vast majority of shipping contracts, as it is for most international commercial contracts. As a young shipbroker in London with English as my mother tongue, I did not realise how valuable Norwegian and French were to be for me. Taking a gap year before university and being one quarter Norwegian, I elected to spend the time as a business trainee in Norway. Despite numerous visits down the years, my knowledge of the language was fairly basic.
On my arrival, male colleagues were very affable and helpful. Rather more imaginatively, my lady colleagues announced that if I wanted any help, of course I would have to speak Norwegian. This was a challenge, but with their help, augmented by a weekly outside lesson, I made huge strides. It is amazing what six months of near total immersion can do. Three years later, on taking up my career as a shipbroker, I found that the negotiations, and a great deal of the business discussion, with Norwegian ship owners was of course in English—but they were all intrigued also to exchange some thoughts in Norwegian with this young Briton, both in and out of the office. It was an extra card that I was lucky enough to have in my hand, and I commend this to all young people thinking about their careers.
My French language shipping experience came about more haphazardly. I was a junior broker, post Cambridge, in the tanker department. One day the cry went up, “Does anyone speak French?” I assumed help was needed with an invoice or something similar. Not for the first time in my life did I find how dangerous it is to assume anything. Armed with my rather average French A-level from a summer course at the Sorbonne, I announced that I did. “Good,” announced the head of the department, “We’re going to start working with the Algerian state shipping company.” I remonstrated that my French was perhaps not all that might be required, but I was overruled. I took a few conversation classes at lunchtimes, and with some hard work on my side and some patience and forbearance on the Algerian side, we soon established a very good relationship and successfully negotiated a lot of business in French.
My point—I think it has been made many times already—is that foreign languages, particularly certain key ones such as French, Spanish and German, can be the greatest possible benefit to the individual and to businesses. Obviously today the list is getting longer, with Chinese, Arabic and Japanese becoming more prominent.
Another point relating to careers in business is that Britain is very well regarded in South American markets. There is enormous good will and great potential for British exports and invisibles. However, it is of the utmost importance to speak Spanish, or Portuguese in Brazil. I have the honour to serve as president of Canning House, the forum for UK-Latin American relations. I work very hard at it, and I love Latin America and its peoples, but alas, I do not speak Spanish. I will never equal the position enjoyed by our colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—a former Canning House president herself, who studied in Ecuador and speaks impeccable Spanish.
Summing up all the strands—cultural, business, societal, and economic—it is essential that the UK boosts significantly its capital in languages. Recapping on all that we have heard, MFL provision is in crisis, particularly in our universities. We know that building back capacity in anything once lost is a very expensive and challenging process. I support the recommendation that a visa waiver be applied to suitably qualified foreign language teachers. I support the demands for, to be honest, most of the things that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, so I will not regurgitate them here. Can the Minister tell me whether any of Britain’s education providers has sought to equal the excellence of some of the former techs in the provision of business training along with foreign languages? I have had some tremendous experience down the years of exceptional people who had studied language and business at techs.
In conclusion, looking back on my experience, it was only having commenced my career that I fully appreciated the significant business value of certain languages. I suggest that consideration be given to the establishment of language ambassadors, who would visit schools and promote the immense potential value and life enrichment provided by languages in general, and perhaps degrees in them. As someone who expects soon to be out of this place, with some time on my hands, I think this would be very worth while.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this timely and thoughtful debate. I add my thanks in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing it. Across the House, there has been striking consensus on two points: first, that the decline in modern foreign language learning in our schools and universities is deeply worrying; and, secondly, that the shortage of qualified language teachers is a central and urgent cause of that decline.
Language learning is not a luxury add-on to the curriculum. It is fundamental to our economic competitiveness, cultural understanding, diplomatic reach and national security. In an increasingly competitive global economy, linguistic capability is a core economic asset. Research commissioned by the former Department for Business, and subsequently cited by the British Academy and others, has estimated that the UK’s language skills deficit costs the economy around 3.5% of GDP, as we were told by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in opening the debate. That equates to around £40 billion in lost trade annually, reduced export performance and missed investment opportunities, driven in part by an overreliance on English and a shortage of people able to operate confidently in other languages.
Many British companies that export have demonstrated more productivity and resilience than those that do not, yet surveys of small and medium-sized enterprises consistently show that language barriers are among the most common obstacles to exporting. Businesses report losing contracts, failing to enter new markets and relying on costly intermediaries because of a lack of staff with the necessary language skills. This is particularly damaging for SMEs, which form the backbone of our economy but often lack the resources to compensate for that language gap.
There is strong evidence that language skills enhance individual and national productivity. Graduates with foreign language skills enjoy a measurable wage premium during their working lives, often estimated at between 5% and 10%. This reflects their higher employability, access to roles and a range of life skills, as my noble friend Lady Smith said in talking about lifelong learning. When multiplied across the workforce, these individual gains translate into significant national economic benefits.
The United Kingdom now seeks to deepen and diversify its trading relationships with our European neighbours post Brexit. I want to comment on the “French weekends” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard. A close friend of mine, Antoine, who works for the French Government on the Erasmus programme, is watching this debate keenly, because he is keen to expand connections between France and the United Kingdom, particularly around the French language. I was particularly moved by that.
The Government’s own trade ambitions depend on people who can negotiate contracts, understand regulatory systems, build long-term relationships and operate with cultural fluency. Language skills are not a “nice to have” in this context; they are our economic infrastructure. Yet uptake at GCSE and A-level, as we have heard from many noble Lords, remains stubbornly low, university language departments continue to close, and schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, are increasingly unable to offer a broad and sustained language curriculum. This threatens to create a two-tier system in which language skills and the economic advantages that flow from them are concentrated among the most privileged, while the wider economy suffers from a shrinking skills base.
We cannot reverse these trends without addressing the supply of teachers. As several noble Lords have made clear, domestic recruitment alone is not currently meeting this need. The pipeline is weak, retention is fragile and workload pressures are driving skilled teachers out of the profession. Against that backdrop, it is simply self-defeating to erect additional barriers to recruiting qualified modern foreign language teachers from overseas, particularly when the economic cost of inaction is measured in tens of billions of pounds each year. That is why the question of visas and migration policy is so important.
Language teachers are, by definition, internationally mobile professionals. Many are native speakers, and bring with them a cultural knowledge and linguistic authenticity that directly improves teaching quality and student outcomes. In economic terms they represent not a cost but a long-term investment in the skills base on which future growth depends. Yet the current system remains slow, expensive and, in many cases, actively discouraging. That is why on these Benches we believe that there is a strong case for targeted visa waivers or streamlined routes specifically for modern foreign language teachers, and I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. These roles should be treated as shortage occupations not just in name but in practice. Schools should not be deterred from appointing excellent candidates because of prohibitive fees, bureaucratic delays or uncertainty over status, especially when the economic returns of stronger language capability are so well evidenced.
But visas alone will not be enough. Sustainability must be the watchword. Overseas teachers need proper induction, professional support, and a clear route to settlement if they are to stay and build long-term careers here. We must ensure that their qualifications are recognised swiftly and fairly and that schools are supported in navigating the process. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the broader ecosystem. Teacher supply is inseparable from student demand. Pupils are less likely to study languages if provision is patchy, courses are withdrawn midway or teaching is delivered by non-specialists. Universities, in turn, cannot sustain language departments if school uptake continues to fall. This is a vicious circle, as we have heard from many noble Lords, and one that the UK can ill afford economically.
I was particularly struck by contributions highlighting the impact on less commonly taught languages. They are often first to disappear when staffing becomes difficult, yet these are precisely the languages in which the United Kingdom most needs capacity. Languages such as Arabic, Mandarin, Japanese, Russian, Portuguese, Polish, Turkish, Urdu and Persian are spoken in regions accounting for a substantial and growing share of global GDP. Further, when it comes to the issue of security—I see that the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Robertson, are here—having individuals who can speak Arabic, Mandarin, Russian and Persian will be crucial in years to come. Weak provision in these languages undermines our ability to trade, attract investment and operate effectively in strategically important markets.
This is not simply an education issue, nor is it simply a migration issue; it is an economic and security strategy issue. Will the Government commit to working across departments to develop a coherent approach, one that recognises the proven economic and security value of language skills, values international expertise and places long-term sustainability at its heart? From these Benches, we stand ready to support pragmatic, evidence-based measures to rebuild language learning in this country. That includes fairer visa routes, better support for overseas teachers, stronger incentives for domestic trainees, and a renewed commitment to languages as a core part of a broad and balanced education.
If we fail to act, we risk presiding over a slow erosion of one of the UK’s greatest strengths: our ability to engage confidently, respectfully and effectively in the wider world. That would be a loss to not just our education system but our economy, our global standing and our society as a whole. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the strength of feeling expressed across this House and respond with the urgency and ambition that the situation so clearly demands.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and all noble Lords who have chosen to make valuable contributions on this subject. The recruitment and retention of modern language teachers, indeed of teachers in all subjects, is incredibly important. In an education setting, consistency and reliability are paramount and, alongside excellence, that must be the north star. Learning a foreign language can be one of the most rewarding skills that students will achieve during their tenure at school and university. Taking on board Spanish, for example, introduces them not just to Spain but to the majority of countries in South America, such as Peru, Colombia, Argentina and Chile. They can experience some of the finest gastronomy in the world. They can dive into the history of the Inca empire. In short, learning a foreign language can be the gateway to myriad new experiences and cultural discovery to which there is only an upside.
This is not where the benefits end. Taking Peru specifically, many young people left the country for Europe during the political unrest of the late 1980s. They came to live in Europe, they learned the language, but, more importantly, they took on the culture. Many of those individuals have over the years returned to that country, and the country itself has hugely benefited from that net return. It is a melting pot of the best cultural experiences brought back home, and the UK has the ability to replicate that success.
In many situations, learning a foreign language not only deepens students’ comprehension of grammar and linguistics in both the foreign language and English but, crucially, expands their future opportunities. As highlighted by my noble friend Lady Shephard, a former Secretary of State for Education, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Mountevans, the ability to be fluent in a foreign language is attractive to employers. UK companies operating overseas should of course be offering opportunities to local staff—that goes without saying—but it will always be of interest to them if they can have colleagues from head office helping to run the business on the ground, speaking the language and interacting.
For those reasons, it is pivotal to ensure that pupils have access to an adequate number of well-trained teachers. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are encouraged by the early steps that this Government have taken. Continuing to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education is a welcome move, as is the offering of bursaries for new trainee language teachers. It would appear unlikely that the Government will introduce a visa waiver for language teachers, and we do not per se have a major issue with that, but where His Majesty’s Government will not seek teachers from abroad, they must be training teachers at home. Failing to deliver on both items is simply not an option. Some 93% of the Government’s postgraduate initial teacher training target has been met, and this is of course an important start, but, as was highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Blower, the target set was by far the lowest in recent years. It was a low bar to meet, and we urge the Minister to commit to scaling up this recruitment drive with some real numbers.
However, there is little use driving teacher recruitment if the demand is no longer there for the subjects in question. We are therefore concerned about the effects that the Government’s proposed reforms to the national curriculum will have on the uptake of foreign languages by pupils, and thus the supply of teachers in both schools and universities. As was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Shephard, the English baccalaureate will cease to exist from 2027. Pupils will no longer have a structural incentive to study a foreign language at GCSE. The GCSE is the principal gateway into the continued study of a subject. If the incentive to study languages at 16 is removed, it risks reducing the number of pupils entering the pipeline at this critical stage.
Before the Conservative Government implemented the EBacc in 2010, foreign languages as a percentage of all GCSE entries had seen a decrease of more than 60% under the previous Administration. From 2010 to 2024, we succeeded in reversing that trend. Languages have since consistently accounted for around 7% of entries. The EBacc system is proven to have worked, and the removal of that tried and tested system will undoubtedly see a return to the previous decline. Then, without the EBacc, the Government will reform Progress 8 to offer breadth at the expense of depth, despite the curriculum and assessment review recommending that its structure remain unchanged. Foreign languages will have to compete with an increased number of subjects, many of which may be perceived as less challenging, enabling students to perhaps take the easier option and further lowering uptake.
The Government have repeatedly said they are investing in 6,500 new teachers, despite the decrease in the number of primary school teachers since the Government came into power. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, put it so well on 17 December, there is at least a problem, if not a crisis, in teacher recruitment and retention. Critically, attempting to expand teacher supply while at the same time undermining subject demand will surely lead to a sub-optimal outcome. Even without the Government’s forthcoming reforms, language learning beyond GCSE level is already falling. Foreign language uptake as a proportion of A-level entries has been lowered for the past 30 years and is now less than half of GCSE entries. The number of students accepted on to French, German, Scandinavian and Iberian studies courses has fallen by 35% in the past five years.
As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, 17 universities have now closed their modern language courses. The Government’s reforms risk accelerating this decline in foreign languages. If you lower the demand for subjects, you automatically lower the demand for teachers, which goes directly against the Government’s manifesto pledge to fire up recruitment. We ask for a focus on language pupil retention post GCSE, not lowering entries in the first place. If the Government believe that this strategy is correct, it would be safe to assume they have modelled the impact of the absence of EBacc on foreign languages uptake. So will the Minister share that modelling with your Lordships’ House? Post GCSE, how will the Government plan to both incentivise pupils to continue learning languages and to direct teachers into both higher and further education?
I conclude with something that has not been raised yet: a quote from the director of HEPI, who said that the 2004 decision that languages would no longer be compulsory for 14 to 16 year-olds was
“probably the worst educational policy of this century”.
So will the Minister commit to at least considering a reversal of that policy decision? Ensuring that there is a steady uptake of foreign languages and a suitable number of teachers requires a holistic effort throughout the schooling system.
If we fail to encourage children to learn a language at GCSE, there is little use in investing in language at later stages. If pupils do not carry languages past GCSE, we are laying brilliant foundations but not building on them.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as the heavyweight bookend closing this debate, let me say what a good debate it has been. I thank my fellow bookend, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for having introduced it in the first place. There was a clear consensus during the debate that having the opportunity to study a modern foreign language should be part of a broad and rich education that every child in this country deserves.
Languages provide an insight into other cultures, and indeed they provide an insight into our own language, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, also made clear. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that I benefited from a couple of terms of Latin at Dyson Perrins, the school that we shared, as well as A-level French and O-level German and Italian. That has not stopped me, however, still wanting to be part of this year’s Duolingo challenge, and I will take on anybody who also wants to be part of it.
As many have argued, languages also open the door to better employment opportunities; they are an important cultural asset, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said; they are of economic and security value, and they are therefore a vital part of the curriculum. We are working to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education.
Of course—and this has been a key feature of this debate—we cannot do that without high-quality teachers in our classrooms. Recruiting and retaining expert teachers is critical to this Government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child, as high-quality teaching is the in-school factor that has the biggest positive impact on a child’s outcomes. This is why the Government’s plan for change is committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across secondary schools, special schools and colleges over this Parliament. Delivery is already under way, with a 4% pay award agreed for 2025-26, building on the 5.5% pay award for 2024-25, meaning that teachers and leaders will see an increase in their pay of almost 10% over two years under this Government.
We are already seeing positive signs that this investment is delivering, with the workforce growing by 2,346 full-time equivalents between 2023-24 and 2024-25 in secondary and special schools. That is where they are needed most, particularly for the sorts of subjects we are talking about today, and it is good that there is more positive news. We have seen a year-on-year increase in the number of trainees for postgraduate initial teacher training for modern foreign languages, up by 185 to 1,364 in 2025-26 from 1,179 in 2024-25. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, that that is a real number. This is supported by real government commitment, with continued bursaries, and therefore with a 14% increase in the number of trainee teachers starting their initial teacher training this year.
This recruitment year, we are offering language trainees bursaries worth £20,000 tax free or a scholarship worth £22,000 tax free to teach French, German or Spanish. Of course, to ensure continued recruitment of expert modern foreign language teachers, trainees can also access a tuition fee loan, maintenance loan and additional support depending on their circumstances, such as a childcare grant.
There has been a focus in this debate on international recruitment. While our teacher recruitment strategy is focused primarily on domestic recruitment, with over 70% of modern foreign language teachers being UK nationals, we recognise the valuable part that high-quality international teachers can play in contributing to our schools, especially in MFL. That is why highly qualified teachers who have trained in overseas countries can apply directly for qualified teacher status via the apply for QTS in England service, which has robust eligibility requirements to ensure that overseas teachers awarded QTS have the necessary skills and experience to teach in schools in England.
There has been focus on the immigration system during this debate and perhaps I could provide some reassurance for noble Lords. It is, of course, easier for an international teacher to be employed on a skilled worker visa than it is for other workers, by virtue of the fact that they do not have to meet the minimum visa salary thresholds as long as they are paid in line with the national teacher pay scales. This means that a qualified teacher outside London earning £31,650 qualifies for a skilled worker visa, whereas for most other occupations they would need to earn at least £41,700. I know that noble Lords have raised the point about whether it is difficult for schools to sponsor international teachers as workers. We recognise the challenge and that is why we are continuing to work closely to support the sector, providing dedicated guidance for schools which would like to employ international teachers and looking at how we can best support schools to navigate the visa sponsorship processes to ensure that international teachers can train and work in England. This is of course something where multi-academy trusts and local authorities can also provide support to schools that want to act as sponsors for those visas.
Therefore, while I understand the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about the forthcoming reduction in the graduate visa length, it remains an internationally very competitive visa and provides 18 months of opportunity for schools to determine whether an international student who has become a teacher is one whom they would then want to go on and sponsor. We also continue to offer bursaries and scholarships to non-UK national trainees in modern foreign languages to attract the best of those trainees and to ensure that they receive the appropriate training in this country.
On the international relocation payment, this was a two-year programme which the Government announced in June would not continue beyond its pilot stage. That is because, in looking at the evaluation, the research suggested that while the IRP supported some teachers to come to England to teach, the majority said that they would have come without the incentive and that the bursary and scholarship offer—which I have already outlined and which applies to international teachers—was a greater incentive to trainees.
On the point about the visa waiver, there have been no visa waivers for any profession since 2015. It is not our intention to develop a visa waiver here, but as I have identified, there are a whole range of other ways in which we are encouraging, where necessary, international students both to come to the UK and to stay to become teachers.
Several noble Lords have noted the important decision taken by this Government to rejoin from 2027 Erasmus+, the EU’s flagship programme for education, training, youth and support. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, rightly identified the asymmetry in the previous membership of Erasmus, which is why I am sure he is impressed that the Government have secured fair terms, including a 30% discount and a 10-month review to ensure value for money, maintaining a fair balance between the UK’s contribution and the number of participants benefiting from the programme. I believe that the benefits of this association, which extends beyond higher education to vocational training, adult education, schools and youth support organisations, will unlock world-class opportunities for learners, educators and communities and enable them to experience new cultures and learning environments and to learn languages, to recognise the significance of learning those languages and to gain new skills.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is right that, in order to get the most out of this, we need to ensure that we encourage participation. That is a challenge we will take very seriously. We are already working to determine the national agency. As the noble Lord said, we are talking to the British Council about taking on that role.
We know, however, that the best recruitment strategy for teachers is a strong retention strategy. Since this Government came to power, we have sought to repair the relationship with the education workforce. We are working alongside them to re-establish teaching as an attractive expert profession, in which teachers are once more valued for the important work they do.
Languages are a vital part of the curriculum. We want to ensure that all pupils have access to a high-quality language education, starting at primary where languages are a compulsory part of the national curriculum at key stages 2 and 3. We are committed to enhancing early language education through to secondary to build that strong foundation for language skills and to increase the languages pipeline.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, referenced the Curriculum and Assessment Review. It recommended that we update the key stage 2 languages programme of study to include clearly defined minimum core content for French, German and Spanish to standardise expectations about what substantial progress in one language looks like. There is an issue about how you ensure the continuity of learning from the last two years of primary education through the transition into secondary. Sometimes pupils have to move to a different language, or the secondary school does not recognise the learning that has happened in primary schools.
Strengthening the national curriculum—taking up some of the good ideas talked about by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, in terms of work between primary and secondary schools—could make an important difference. It is an area in which we can support further work. I know that all noble Lords—there has been mention of it already—are intrigued by the French weekends of the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and would be very willing to accept invitations.
We are going much further than the review’s recommendations to tackle a range of issues that impact the languages pipeline. For example, we are exploring the feasibility of developing a flexible new qualification. This would mean that all pupils can have their achievements acknowledged when they are ready rather than at fixed points, enabling a recognition of progress and development in languages. This could also be extended to languages beyond those mainstream modern foreign languages.
We will continue to fund the National Consortium for Languages Education to ensure that all language teachers, regardless of location, have access to high-quality professional development and the skills they need to deliver the curriculum, and are able to develop the sort of networks that noble Lords have talked about.
We are working with the sector to learn from successful approaches to supporting the languages pipeline, including at A-level and degree level, and ways in which we can, for example, support A-level teaching through innovative partnerships with higher education and from approaches such as the one in Hackney, which is improving primary provision and transition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, raised the issue of education technology; we are also exploring how AI and edtech can support stronger outcomes in language education, including exploring how those tools can help to deliver consistent curriculum content and support more coherent language provision across key stages as well as reduce teacher workload.
I understand that one of the objectives the last Government hoped for in introducing the EBacc was to increase study of those subjects, but actually of course the review found that uptake of EBacc subjects has not translated into increased study of them at 16 to 19. EBacc measures have, of course, unnecessarily constrained subject choice, affecting students’ engagement and achievement. That is why we will consult on an improved Progress 8, which balances a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, while no longer pursuing the EBacc accountability measure.
Languages are a vital part of the curriculum, and we want to ensure that all pupils have access to high-quality language education. That is why, starting at primary, we are committed to enhancing early language education, through to secondary, and to building a strong foundation for language skills to ensure a continuation on to A-levels and therefore to provide an appropriate pipeline into higher education. I recognise the concern that many noble Lords have expressed about the reduction in the number of students going into higher education to study modern foreign languages and the threats to some of those modern foreign language courses.
Although higher education providers are autonomous and independent institutions and will be ultimately responsible for the decisions they make regarding which courses they choose to deliver, I am sure their decisions could not have been made easier by the freezing of tuition fees and the failure by the previous Government to recognise the financial challenge that higher education was facing. That is why, although we are not proposing to change the categorisation of modern foreign languages in the strategic priorities grant, we have, through a commitment to index-linking tuition fee increases, provided much more financial stability to higher education and the ability to plan strategically and avoid the sorts of cold spots, including in modern foreign languages, that noble Lords have identified.
I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, about the significance of universities, particularly, in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, the Open University. I share her admiration and credit her for her role in the contribution that the OU makes to language learning. Although the lifelong learning entitlement does not, in its first set of modules, include modern foreign languages, there is clearly an opportunity to ensure funding for modern foreign language learning throughout lifetimes in future iterations of the extent of the lifelong learning entitlement.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for this excellent debate. We recognise the importance and value of languages. We will continue to ensure that language education in England is accessible for all. We have used the Curriculum and Assessment Review to strengthen languages education as part of broader curriculum reform. We recognise that this can be delivered only by expert teachers, and ensuring that there are sufficient high-quality teachers in the classroom is a cornerstone of this Government’s plan for change. That is why we are pleased about the good progress we are making in recruiting more teachers and keeping more teachers in the classroom, as well as the increased number of modern foreign language trainees who have begun training this year. We will continue to ensure that we recruit and retain the best modern foreign language teachers for the remainder of this Parliament, through our financial incentives and through improving teacher workload and well-being so that we can achieve all the benefits of learning modern foreign languages, both at school and throughout lives, that noble Lords have identified in this debate.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her reply. I am pleased and happy to hear her say that she recognises that schools still have an issue over how complicated and costly the process for applying and getting sponsorship visas can be. I hope very much that that will lead to more efficient and upfront guidance and help for schools on this issue.
On some of the other issues and questions that I put to the Minister in my introduction and which have been raised by other noble Lords, I think there is still some distance between what the Minister has set out as positive progress and the evidence being received by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages from teachers and schools, particularly teachers who are foreign nationals who have been trained here as MFL teachers but still find it very difficult to get jobs here because of the difficulty in negotiating the visa requirements. I hope that the Minister will be open to follow-up discussions with me and other noble Lords to see whether we can push a little further with the department, and of course the Home Office, on these issues.
In thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and at the risk of breaching one of the rules in the Companion, I would just like to say, merci, danke, gracias and shukran.