Europe: Youth Mobility

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this matter before us today. My contribution will be to strongly support a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and European countries. But, before putting forward my arguments for this, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech—and thank him, actually, for mentioning me.

The noble Lord and I go back quite a long way, if I might use that phrase. We first encountered each other, I think, when I was the UK Immigration Minister—never an easy job at the best of times, as we all know—and the noble Lord was the head of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. We had some exchanges at that time and I am pleased to say that, despite our slightly different backgrounds and responsibilities, we had a positive relationship. Later, when we were both MEPs, the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, was, as he said, the chair of the LIBE Committee—the justice committee —of the European Parliament, with me as the lead Conservative. I can state categorically that, by working together, especially on security issues, we were able to demonstrate the importance of the UK in protecting not only our own citizens but all Europeans and the wider world. It was a most productive relationship. Sadly, of course, Brexit removed those activities, but I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, is now here with us.

In examining the Government’s stated wish to restore or reset our relationship with the EU, the matter we are debating today is of great importance, not only for our young people but for the economic, cultural and diplomatic ties that bind us to our closest neighbours.

Since the UK left the EU, young people on both sides of the channel have faced a stark reality: opportunities that were once taken for granted have disappeared. The ability to study, work and gain international experience in each other’s countries has been significantly diminished. This is not merely an inconvenience: it is a loss of potential, a restriction of opportunity and a barrier to future prosperity.

We have long argued that expanding youth mobility schemes to more countries—particularly those geographically and economically close to the UK—would be beneficial. Sectors with fluid labour markets, such as hospitality, have relied on the participation of young workers for years.

Of course, youth mobility schemes are not new, as other noble Lords have mentioned. The UK already has agreements with countries such as Australia, Canada and Japan, allowing young people to live and work in those nations for a defined period. These agreements are reciprocal, well regulated and mutually beneficial. There is absolutely no logical reason why a similar scheme cannot be agreed with Europe, especially with the EU itself. Of course, the specifics will need to be negotiated to ensure that we get a deal that is in our interests, but that is very much achievable.

The economic case is compelling. This is an initiative welcomed across business communities and across all sectors, and widely seen by labour organisations and the third sector as a serious omission from our current relationships. European interns have often been invaluable in helping British small and medium-sized companies expand into new European markets. The long-standing practice among UK lawyers—I speak as a lawyer myself— of spending time in an EU member state during training or after qualification has been crucial for professional development and career success. However, this pathway is no longer accessible to those lawyers employed by firms without EU offices, as they cannot take advantage of the intra-corporate transfer provisions contained within the TCA.

Similarly, for example, the horticulture sector has for many years sent students and young people to the Netherlands in the summer, while taking European students here—a system that has been fundamental to how they do business.

Polling evidence also shows very strong public support for a youth mobility scheme. In August 2024, research by More in Common found that 58% of people think that such a scheme is a good idea, compared with only 10% who oppose it. Breaking that down, 71% of those who voted Labour in the July general election supported the scheme, as well as a majority—56%—of Conservative voters. I should not mention it, but even among Reform UK voters, support stood at 44%, with only 27% against. Those numbers demonstrate a broad consensus in favour of restoring structured opportunities for young people.

A structured mobility scheme with the EU would enhance the UK’s soft power. Our influence in Europe and beyond is built not only on economic and security relationships—important as they are—but on cultural and personal connections. When young people live and work abroad, they form lasting relationships, break down barriers and build bridges—both literally and figuratively, I think. These connections contribute to Britain’s standing in the world, making us a more attractive and engaged partner on the international stage.

Some are arguing that concerns about immigration should deter us from pursuing such a scheme. One or two speakers have done that. As I have said, I speak as a former Immigration Minister and there is a clear misunderstanding of the proposals. A youth mobility agreement is not unrestricted migration; it is a temporary reciprocal arrangement that benefits both sides. Those coming into the UK must have financial means to support themselves and it does not offer a path to citizenship. It is not—I repeat, not—a return to free movement.

We know that the EU has expressed its openness to having an agreement. To a large extent, the ball is now in the UK’s court. If we fail to engage constructively, we risk further diminishing our ties with our closest allies and depriving future generations of the opportunities that all their predecessors enjoyed.

The benefits of youth mobility are clear, but we must place this in the wider context of our relationship with Europe. This is not just good for young people; it is good for the UK and good for Europe. The EU has already put an offer on the table and our Government should now engage, negotiate and reach a fair and beneficial agreement, without further delay. By doing so, we can secure meaningful gains across multiple sectors, foster a closer and more co-operative relationship with our European neighbours and, in doing so, enhance our collective security and economic prosperity.

In conclusion, this is an opportunity that we really must seize. I urge the Government to act in the best interests of our young people and our country.

Global IT Outage

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I will discuss my noble friend’s point with colleagues and will write back to him as soon as possible.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, a member of my family returning to the United States in the last few days has been very inconvenienced by what occurred. I ask the Minister to adequately look at the question of redress in any legislation that we now pursue in relation to data protection generally, and to AI for that matter. It is a vital component of the GDPR. I therefore ask her to look carefully at this and make sure that adequate redress is available across all these matters.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are reviewing what happened and will implement any lessons learned as a matter of urgency. We appreciate the significant inconvenience caused to those affected, but it is a matter for individual operators. The consumer rules cover specific compensation entitlement. From my view, the essential point arising from the issues caused by CrowdStrike is the need to strengthen our resilience, which is what this Government intend to do.

Border Checks on Imported Goods: New IT Systems

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have estimated that there are significant potential savings in annual costs, but I repeat my fundamental point that this is not a delay but a deliberate decision to move towards a new target date.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, pursuing the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, I seem to recollect that at the time of the construction of the tunnel, we agreed in writing with the French that a little piece of England would become French and, on the other side of the channel, a little bit of France would become England for the purposes of border checks. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that that arrangement is still in place, or have we now asked our friends in France to give us back that territory?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not aware of any such suggestion, but as I have said to my noble friend Lord Hailsham, I will look into the operation of passport controls on Eurostar. I will take into account the other border that he refers to and will write to noble Lords.

Money Laundering

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that a number of very substantial fines have been levied for breaching money laundering regulations over the last few years. In 2020, Goldman Sachs was fined £48 million; in 2019, Standard Chartered was fined £102 million; and, even in the last few weeks, NatWest was handed a fine of £264 million. This just emphasises our commitment to dealing with this whole area.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, having had the dubious privilege of being one of those who helped to draft the anti-money laundering directives in Brussels, and thereby finding himself described by friends as an expert in money laundering, may I enquire about the word “proportional”, which appears in the directive? Does my noble friend feel that that word is being properly applied by our financial institutions to small investors and those who will never be engaged in money laundering? Does he think that that is balanced and fair and that we have the right approach?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I would certainly defer to my noble friend as someone who is an expert in this area, which I am not. It is extremely difficult to get the right balance in these things, because what one person would consider an intrusion, another would consider a protection. We have to remain alert and sensitive to the different forces, but what is most important is that we have a coherent system which is clamping down on an extremely complex and fast-evolving crime.

Northern Ireland: Supply of Medicines

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, as I said in answer to an earlier question, medicines are a special case of the general issue of supply of goods into Northern Ireland. As the protocol covers that general issue, it includes medicines. It has created special difficulties that we are trying to resolve.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, on the supply of medicines, I understand that one issue in these negotiations is that there is further information which apparently is not being provided to the UK Government. Could my noble friend elucidate on this a bit more because, obviously, we all want agreement to be achieved as soon as possible?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that in an area as technical and complicated as this, it is obviously essential that we have full access to all the detail, all the potential legislation and all the potential guidance issued. At the moment, we do not have that. We have not been able to see it all, but I hope that we might be able to do so before too long. It is obviously not possible for us to reach agreement unless we have access to that level of detail.

Cash Network

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, it is not difficult to open a bank account. What we need to do is keep encouraging these elderly people who do not have an account yet to open one.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

I congratulate my noble friend on the work he is doing in this regard, but surely we should keep from retailers the costs from the banks themselves for handling cash, which seem to be an impediment. Does my noble friend agree that there is still some reluctance, following the Covid crisis, about handling cash? Is anything being done to reassure the public that it is safe to handle cash?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I think what has happened is that people have discovered the ease of not using cash for a number of transactions. Indeed, retailers would not be turning down cash if their customers were objecting to it.

National Risk Register

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have said repeatedly at this Dispatch Box that lessons from Covid planning, and other planning, will be learned and are being learned, and will be communicated. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. He will know that the Government regularly respond to requests from that committee on risk assessment to inform its work, and they are currently responding to the recommendations in its report Biosecurity and National Security.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the Government on their approach to maintaining the national risk register, but, following the recent severe flooding in Yorkshire and elsewhere, is my noble friend satisfied that there is adequate co-ordination between the national risk register and community risk registers in identifying and meeting such risks?

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend touches on a very important point. In all candour, I think that one is never satisfied with anything; one always wishes to learn from what happens to do things better the next time. However, I assure him that, to support their planning for emergencies, local resilience forums are provided with full support to develop local resilience plans. They have direct contact with the Cabinet Office, should specific questions on risk assessment be raised—I assure the noble Lord that this ongoing dialogue is strong and will be strengthened.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I admit to feeling conflicted. As a pro-European and former MEP—I declare my interests as in the register—who had responsibility, actively and enthusiastically encouraged by my Government, for putting together measures on security and justice encompassing a high level of co-operation and closeness with our neighbours, the present circumstances are somewhat regrettable. However, I am also someone who always likes to look ahead; using too much of my ever-dissipating energy on fighting old battles would be unsatisfying and unproductive.

What we have in the agreement, and in the Bill, will, of course, be interpreted in different ways by different factions and individuals. Some will suggest that it draws a firm and unbendable line under our relationship with the EU. Some will be somewhat dissatisfied, like the self-styled ERG, having probably hoped for a greater separation from Europe’s institutions. Some, like me, know that it is better than no deal and the then inevitable total collapse in the prospect of any meaningful future relationship. In fact, I regard this, like the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, earlier, as a platform: a place and event where we can at least maintain a reasonable closeness to Europe pending the construction of new and positive connections.

Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are talking of “our friends across the channel”. Friendship does not just happen, nor can it be assumed by one party; it needs hard work, especially following a divorce. It may need time too, but in a world that is moving fast, with so many challenges—in health, the environment, the economy, technology and security—that may be a luxury we cannot afford. The gaps and uncertainties in the agreement must be filled and consolidated quickly. My interests in the fields of security and justice, for instance, oblige me to press for the maintenance of real-time exchanges of information and data between law enforcement and intelligence agencies, rather than a simple “note of intent”, which is currently all we seem to have. That is a priority, and I hope the Government pursue a solution, but it can be achieved only if we are genuinely seeking to keep a real friendship with our European neighbours. It also requires trust. Some of our actions and political rhetoric over the last few years have put that element of friendship at great risk.

As we move on, we must ensure that we do so openly, positively and amicably. While some talk of the new global canvas for our country, they should be reminded that Europe continues to occupy a significant part of that globe and continues to occupy the hearts and minds of many of our citizens.

Spending Review 2020

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the spending review refers a lot to investment: capital investment, public sector investment, investment in economic recovery and targeted investment. All this is required, it explains, in a post-Covid world. It does not refer to an equally important post-Brexit world—and, as others have already stated, it should.

Investment sounds good, as long as we can afford it, but the record of all Governments to date in making wise investment decisions and properly monitoring and controlling outcomes is pretty abysmal. There are many examples; one has only to look at defence procurement to see evidence of waste and the misdirection of funds over the years. I implore my noble friend that this review should also require better monitoring and accountability of this public expenditure, and better reporting mechanisms so that we can make better judgments on their efficacy.

Many people and businesses are anxious to hear more of how the numerous grants and support vehicles received to date from the EU are to be replicated from 2021. Regional and rural development in particular have benefited from these. There is reference in the review to the new UK shared prosperity fund, which it says

“will at least match receipts from EU structural funds”.

But are the same criteria to be applied? If not, what changes in delivery or distribution will the Government make?

There is much talk of a new “global Britain”. We have always been a global nation and all improved international collaboration is to be welcomed. But, despite our departure from a long-standing relationship with our European neighbours, I urge that this intended enhanced collaboration starts with them, and is pursued in future in a friendly and positive manner, which clearly will be much to our advantage in the coming challenging years.

Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a founder member of the Mental Health Act commission back in the 1980s. It is because of that interest that I wish to concentrate my remarks today mostly on the aspects of the regulations that refer to mental health.

I am sure we all appreciate that debt and mental health are a bit of a vicious circle. Worrying about finances and having limited capacity, and possibly limited assistance, in dealing with money matters can exacerbate mental illness, often to the point of triggering a crisis. It follows that a person’s critical mental state means that managing finances becomes an impossible burden. I therefore welcome these proposals, which, despite applying only in limited circumstances, bring some relief to a number of those in receipt of critical treatment throughout the period in which that treatment is necessary. This breathing space is important. However, it should not be regarded as just a delay to the inevitable but as an opportunity for resolution of outstanding pressures.

I am a little disappointed that the second part of the proposals, for a statutory debt repayment plan, is not being introduced at the same time. Indeed, no date has yet been suggested by the Government. Can my noble friend the Minister give us any indication as to when those proposals might be introduced, and what, if any, problems are preventing a date being set? A moratorium of limited time and scope, without these additional provisions, may just kick the can down the road, especially if other assistance is not fully deployed in the meantime. As these first proposals are now to come into effect in May next year, speed in completing the other provisions is essential.

The Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, to which my noble friend the Minister has referred, provides us with the powers that we are examining and which are needed to obtain debt respite, but without a wider scheme in place we are taking risks in proceeding with this element alone. They surely rely on each other to have the best chance of success. For those who are not currently under mental health crisis treatment, the regulations set out the means whereby they can get advice, as well as the criteria and qualifications needed by those who give such advice and have the powers afterwards to trigger a moratorium, pending, I hope, some settlement of the issues. Is my noble friend happy with the qualification requirements for those entrusted with those responsibilities?

Even with great care, the process itself can be daunting to anyone with a mental illness. The specific exclusions of certain categories of debt under regulation 5(4) are difficult to understand, especially if they currently include universal credit allowances and third-party deductions or if a VAT-registered business is involved. While the regulations are otherwise reasonably clear, some people may regard any moratorium as cover for all their debts at the time, so it must be clearly explained to them—as my noble friend the Minister has said—that their general ongoing liabilities must still be met, if possible, during the break. Is my noble friend happy that the qualified advisers will be able to convey this message and deliver an appropriate outcome for clients?

These general provisions apply equally to those receiving mental health crisis treatment, but, pursuing a different course, they must get relief in reliance on the approved mental health professionals, who will then need to notify the debt adviser in order to trigger a moratorium. Bearing in mind the historic and long-standing communication problems between AMHPs and local authorities, for instance, over responsibility in mental health matters, can my noble friend offer some further explanation as to how this process might be expected to work?

Sadly, many mental health patients have episodes of crisis that can be repetitive, and, in such cases, there may be difficulties in implementing the breathing space for them. It could be for one crisis treatment followed by the 30 days set down in the regulations and then a further 60 days arranged by the debt adviser. However, if further crisis treatment is necessary, this could be a very long-term situation, which can lead to misunderstandings or, even, unfairness all round. I know that the regulations acknowledge this different approach, as they, of course, limit other cases to only one breathing space in any 12-month period.

The issue of published guidance is also important. It must not be just for debt advisers or AMHPs; it must also be available in simple language for those who might benefit most from it and, surely, also for creditors, who are directly affected by these proposals. I am pleased to see that the provisions will be reviewed after five years, but I hope that, as implementation takes place, there will be careful monitoring and, if necessary, adjustments will be made as and when required. Finally, I hope that my noble friend can reassure us on that point as well.