UK-EU Relations

Debate between Baroness Twycross and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I am now being told that I am time-wasting and that I have to speak up. I have never been told in your Lordships’ House that I need to speak up.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that bringing a Statement a week after it was given is not acceptable. In particular, the world has already changed so much in a week that the musings that have come from Washington, from Donald Trump and his Cabinet Ministers, raise serious concerns about Ukraine, which were discussed this morning. These Benches may agree with the Conservatives that NATO matters, but at the moment the people who are putting Ukraine at risk and not supporting Ukraine are our American allies in NATO. If they are not supporting Ukraine, we need to work far more closely with our European allies to make sure there is no agreement on the future of Ukraine without Ukraine, the UK and other European voices. Does the Minister agree?

Like the noble Lord, Lord True, I find that some aspects of the Statement might be welcome. Having co-operation and meetings is desirable. If we want to rebuild our relations with Europe, we need to have regular meetings. The Ministers, Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty, have had regular bilateral and multilateral meetings with our European partners. I declare an interest, wearing my academic hat: I am currently doing some work on the UK’s bilateral relations with the EU generally and with Germany in particular. The feedback we get is that these meetings are well-received by European partners, but what are they leading to?

As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, we have a reset. We have been told we are not having a rewind, but what does that actually mean? There is little detail in the Statement and a brief reference to the meeting Minister Thomas-Symonds had with Maroš Šefčovič. It is almost impossible to scrutinise what is going on to hold the Government to account. Could the Minister perhaps talk to her colleagues in the other place to see whether a little more detail could be forthcoming? What does the reset mean?

Finally, if we are having a reset and ruthless pragmatism, could the Minister tell us what is meant by “ruthless pragmatism”? Under the new Labour Government, essentially, the approach was promiscuous bilateralism—to have bilateral relationships with as many European partners as possible in order to achieve effectively short-term goals. When the UK got what it wanted, it disappeared; reciprocity was absent. Do His Majesty’s Government understand the importance of reciprocity if we are to rebuild our relationships with Europe? Can ruthless pragmatism include an understanding of that? Does it also include the need to compromise—for example, with movement on a youth mobility scheme, which is not the same as free movement?

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for their comments. They raised a number of important issues, which I will attempt to address in the time remaining.

As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said last week, on 3 February

“the Prime Minister attended an informal retreat with the 27 EU leaders and Presidents von der Leyen and Costa. This marked a clear step forward for this Government’s reset of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He is the first British Prime Minister to join a meeting of European Council members since the UK left the EU”.

At the informal retreat, the Prime Minister

“discussed the common threats that the UK and the EU face, and the value that closer UK-EU co-operation on security and defence could bring. These were points that he also discussed earlier in the day, when he met the Secretary-General of NATO”.

The Prime Minister clearly outlined

“a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, including cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. He called on Europe to step up and project strength, to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put it in the strongest possible position this year”.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord True, our support for Ukraine is unequivocal.

The Prime Minister also set out a strong case for European security and defence, an ambitious UK-EU security partnership and a deeper role for Europe within NATO. Our reset priorities are to protect the security and safety of UK nationals and the wider collective security of Europe, and to support growth through removing barriers to trade. Shortly after the retreat, we announced that the UK will welcome the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission to the UK for the first UK-EU summit, which will take place on Monday 19 May.

This Government have been clear that we are not hitting rewind on Brexit; we are hitting reset. As we made clear in our manifesto, we are not undoing Brexit. We are not rejoining the single market or the customs union, but we are looking to make Brexit work in a way even the leader of the Opposition has made clear that the previous Government failed to do. This is the spirit that we are taking into discussions with the EU as we approach the summit and beyond. This is not a zero-sum game, but a win-win for both sides, with people across the UK and the EU benefiting.

In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord True, on the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, we are always looking at ways to reduce barriers to trade, within our clear red lines. Having a smooth trading relationship with European partners is essential to driving growth at home. This is one of the options we are open to looking at to reduce barriers. It is right and responsible that we are looking at it to determine what is in the UK’s national interest. However, we do not currently have plans to join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention.

On the question of youth mobility, as I made clear during the recent debate on this in your Lordships’ House, this Government recognise the value of schemes which give young people the opportunity to experience different cultures and work or study elsewhere. However, in response to the noble Lord’s point with regard to a prospective scheme on youth mobility in the EU, the Government have been clear that we do not have any plans for youth mobility schemes. However, we will look at any proposals from the EU on this and a range of other issues.

If I do not get the opportunity to respond to the other points that have been raised I will write. On AI, as we develop our approach to regulating AI, we recognise the need to engage with a range of international partners. This includes engaging with the EU, which is a key science and technology partner, as well as working alongside the EU and other partners in the G7, the OECD, the UN and other international fora. We take a very close interest, as noble Lords will be clear is appropriate, in how our largest trading partners are regulating in similar areas. We have regular exchanges with the EU on regulatory developments.

On Chagos, as noble Lords will be aware, the British Indian Ocean Territory deal is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK national security. This deal will protect the base on Diego Garcia and cement a UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come. It is a bit of a stretch to raise this in a debate on the EU reset, but I hope the noble Lord will be content with my response.

On the timing of this Statement, as the noble Lord opposite knows, Statements are scheduled and agreed through the usual channels. As the noble Lord will also know, the Opposition are requesting that every Statement is repeated in this House, which is creating pressures on scheduling. I understand from the Chief Whip that work is ongoing to improve this after the recess.

In conclusion, the Prime Minister made the point in Brussels that the world is very different from that in 2016 and even from that in 2024. A number of noble Lords have noted that the world is changing even on a week-by-week basis. In this time of uncertainty, this Government are stepping up to build alliances in a bid to make our people safer and more prosperous. That is at the core of our national interest and will contribute to this Government’s ambitious plan for change. It is through a new partnership between the UK and the EU that we will deliver for the people of the United Kingdom and for people across the continent.

Higher Education Reform

Debate between Baroness Twycross and Baroness Smith of Newnham

Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

My Lords, what is higher education for? If you looked at the approach summarised by the Government’s response to the Augar review, you would assume it was solely aimed to monetise learning so that the higher the income of the graduate, the higher the value of the course. The letter from the Minister to Peers says that the Government believe that higher education should give students the right skills and knowledge to get well-paid jobs and that the parts of the sector that do not deliver this need to be shrunk.

Labour also believes that people should have the opportunity to get well-paid jobs, whatever their background or whatever part of the country they come from. We think that they should have the same access to opportunities that present value beyond the Conservative Government’s limiting definition. Narrowing the definition of a successful university course solely to earnings means putting a cap on the aspirations of our young people. It ignores the social value and economic importance of areas such as the arts and humanities—I stand here in the House as a language graduate—and targets newer institutions in parts of the country to which we should be spreading opportunity. These universities and higher education establishments tend to draw local students, students whose families may not have attended university, who may not otherwise have the opportunity to participate in higher education. Do the Government really think that this does not represent value of at least some sort?

I am concerned that this approach is the thin end of the wedge and that other courses and routes through education will be targeted next as not having a value. This is not to say that we should not have mechanisms to ensure that the education that students of all ages take up, which the lifelong learning entitlement should allow people to take up throughout their life, is good quality. There already exist mechanisms to assess the quality of courses and limit recruitment for low-progression courses through the Office for Students. Should the Government not simply make sure that they are being used? Is it the Government’s view that the Office for Students is failing in this regard? Does the Minister believe that good quality and social value always equate to the highest-paid roles?

In 2022, 86% of surveyed graduates agreed that their current activity fitted with future plans, with 93% saying that their employment or study was meaningful. Why then do the Government think that they are better placed than students or graduates to make judgments about what is valuable for their future? Labour is concerned that the measures proposed would limit their opportunities, with those from more affluent backgrounds not limited. The announcement on foundation years seems to unfairly punish institutions that recruit a high proportion of students from working-class or ethnic-minority backgrounds. Can the Minister tell us what assessment the DfE has made of the impact that this will have on access to university for students on low incomes, those from minority-ethnic backgrounds and those with disabilities, and how the Government intend to address other issues? The Minister referred to other barriers to high-paid work, such as limited access to paid internships, particularly for those who do not have parental networks to access them through.

In our view, investment in careers advice in schools would ensure that children and young people have the advice to make the right decisions. Good careers advice has to be in place to ensure that the LLE works effectively throughout someone’s career. Can the Minister say whether the Government will increase and improve careers advice both at school and for adults?

Labour also has concerns that the announcement in relation to foundation years will limit opportunity and choice for many young people. Are the Government clear that their intention to phase out some foundation courses will do this?

Labour supports improvements to apprenticeships. We think the Government’s record on apprenticeships demonstrates that they have not made them the attractive alternative that young people—indeed, people of all ages—need in terms of more technical education. Clearly, with major skills shortages in the country, the UK needs more people with the skills to fill the skills shortages in order for us to grow the economy, but the Government have failed to see that the improvements need to be made before other routes are cut off. You cannot improve the take-up of apprenticeships by blocking other currently more attractive options. You have to improve apprenticeships in the first place.

Following the Statement in the Commons earlier this week, the Financial Times and the Times ran articles making it clear that the current apprenticeship offer is inadequate. Will the Minister say how the Government plan to move from a situation in which, as a Times article stated:

“Too many apprenticeships are slave labour”


that do not lead to good and—dare I say it—well-paid jobs?

In conclusion, I want to be clear that this Statement and these measures miss the point. The Government are missing the point about education and are putting a cap on aspiration, particularly for those who do not have a family history of accessing higher education. It is never their own children who the Government feel should not be at university, and never their children who should not get the opportunities that they might put off for others.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I find very little to disagree with in the questions and comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross. She looked across at me as I was voicing approval, as if slightly confused that there should be agreement across the Opposition Benches. On the defence side of things, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I tend to agree, but on this higher education Statement, a lot of questions need to be raised to understand His Majesty’s Government’s understanding of the purpose of higher education.

Before I go any further, I declare my interests as a professor at Cambridge University, one of the UK’s four of the top 10 universities mentioned in the Statement. I am also a non-executive director of the Oxford International Education Group, which runs pathway colleges that in turn run foundation courses. That is something I want to come back to, because there are a couple of questions about the domestic versus the international dimension of higher education that could be explored a little more.

Finally, I feel that I have to admit that I am a professor of European politics, which puts me in the school of humanities and social sciences, the sort of area that the Government seem to be a little sceptical about. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has in the past suggested that if we rejoin Horizon Europe we should not be part of the social sciences aspect. Yet social sciences and arts and humanities play a vital part in educating our young people, whether at 18 or through lifelong learning. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, mentioned being a graduate of languages. Surely that is an area where we should be encouraging young people to go into higher education, to learn languages as a tool for working internationally. As a country that wants to look globally and have global trade markets, we need to be able to communicate internationally. Yet if you were a graduate of modern languages, you might not earn a high salary.

This is where the Statement leaves open a lot of questions. What do His Majesty’s Government really understand by value for money in higher education? We cannot always evaluate value for higher education purely in monetary terms. For some people, a higher education matters because they have an intrinsic love of the subject they are studying. You cannot put a financial metric on that. Also, there are people who go through higher education because they want a particular career track. They get the job they want in the industry to which they are attracted—perhaps the creative industries. They will not necessarily earn a high salary but they will be doing the vocation that they have trained for. Do His Majesty’s Government think that they should not be doing that? What do His Majesty’s Government mean by “a good job”, a phrase used in the Statement? Is it good in terms of salary or interest? Clearly, it is right that people should not be paying into the future for a degree that has had no benefit, but how do we evaluate that? Does it mean that the training needs are not met or simply that some arbitrary metric on income is not met?

His Majesty’s Government say that there are 66 providers where fewer than 60% of graduates progress to highly skilled employment or further study within 15 months of graduating. Can the Minister tell the House what is meant by highly skilled employment? That really matters for how we understand what His Majesty’s Government are seeking to do.

Finally, in terms of foundation courses, pathway colleges train international students who perhaps want to learn English and transition to being able to undertake degrees in British universities. Do His Majesty’s Government feel that they should be evaluated against the same metrics being outlined here, or is there perhaps a need to understand a little more about foundation year study? It could be about international students transitioning to the UK, but it may also be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, mentioned, about widening participation. We need to think very carefully about foundation courses, because there should not be some arbitrary mechanism whereby decisions by the Government or the OfS lead to foundation year courses being closed down, thereby diminishing the chances of participation rather than widening participation.