Cultural and Education Exchanges

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Grand Committee

Asked by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the value of cultural and education exchanges for (1) students, and (2) others who may benefit from such exchanges.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, having started my Question by referring to “cultural” exchanges but wishing to focus on educational exchanges, I requested—just to be on the safe side—that the debate be answered by the Department for Education. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, is here to do so. However, in truth, on reflection, my Question could have been directed in some sense at almost every government department, including, and perhaps especially, the Home Office—I will come back to that.

I first became aware of the term “cultural exchange” in the 1980s, when there was a trend for exchanges of artists between countries. From my time in Sheffield, I remember that there was a huge interest, there and elsewhere, in the culture of countries that are less visited or difficult to visit, including those behind the Iron Curtain or just released from it. Georgia was one such country.

However, one of the things that you quickly observed was how cultural exchange can, at least potentially, get very complicated because the artists concerned have this new, exciting relationship but might also have quite another relationship with their own respective countries—they do not necessarily represent them. One was particularly aware of these undercurrents at the time, even if the wider world then took little notice, at least on our side.

I detect an echo of this today, in a more reverberative way, in the fairly clear unwillingness of our current Government during negotiations to sign up to those aspects of Erasmus+ that they would have been uncomfortable with. Therefore, they could not sign up to Erasmus at all, certain that the schemes would, to the ears of some Brexiteers, have sounded a little too much like an overly cosy relationship at best, and EU propaganda at worst.

My belief is that the reason that the Government dropped Erasmus+ had very little to do with money, as they claim, but everything to do with ideology. Educational exchanges are cultural exchanges and, as with physical borders, this Government are just as keen to control the borders of such exchanges if they feel that their side of the border is in any way threatened. Curiously, they have a very different view of scientific collaboration, with our continuing membership of Horizon Europe, into which we are ploughing large sums of money. This is perhaps ironic, given that science subjects are as much affected by the decision to drop Erasmus+ as any other.

We presently seem to be in a kind of lull between the loss of Erasmus+ and discovering the results of Turing applications. On the plus side, relief has been expressed that something, at least, has been put in place. Also on the plus side is the appointment of the British Council and Ecorys to oversee the scheme, providing both experience and the possibility of a degree of continuity, at least. However, the debit side is long. From what we have heard, Turing woefully lacks the range, depth and ambitions of Erasmus+. The greatest apprehension concerns the potential loss of the links built up over many years by staff and colleges and through associated projects.

One of the major claims for Turing is that it will be global, but figures from 2017-18 show that four out of the five most popular destinations for students are the US—by a wide margin—Australia, Ireland and Canada. Remove the English-speaking countries and France, number 3 on the list and our closest neighbour, becomes the most popular. The language barrier, then, acts to some extent as a disincentive to the majority of UK students. The point here is that emphasising that Turing is to have a global reach only confirms a bias that is already there. Moreover, many universities already have arrangements with other countries, and Erasmus+ itself now reaches beyond Europe. The non-English speaking countries are the ones that really need targeting.

Knowledge of languages, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, would point out, is a key factor in deeper cultural exchange, and is, moreover, hugely important for academic and scientific advancement. As someone very interested in the contemporary arts across Europe, I am aware of how much language differences can be a barrier to understanding. Yet, as a number of recent reports point out, language learning in the UK is decreasing. Andreas Schönle, of Bristol University, says:

“A particular concern … is the increasing social divide in foreign language ability. Yet bilingualism opens many doors and fosters social mobility”.


This is an important point to consider, if educational exchanges are also to help the disadvantaged.

In an answer to a Parliamentary Question on 17 June, the Universities Minister wrote:

“The Turing scheme is targeted at all students, particularly the most disadvantaged. While the UK was part of Erasmus, the most privileged were 1.7 times more likely to benefit from studying abroad”.


I ask the Government: what is the evidence base for that statement, and are they referring only to UK students?

A major intention of Erasmus+ is to help the less well-off, and there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence to support its effectiveness in this respect. A 2019 survey of 31 colleges by the Association of Colleges found that three-quarters gave that programme full marks for benefit to their institution. How will the Government monitor their intention to help the disadvantaged through study abroad, particularly in Europe, where post-Brexit logistical difficulties may well deter many, including the disadvantaged? Perhaps a better measure of success would be in absolute numbers, rather than ratios.

An interesting aspect of what has happened since the announcement about Erasmus has been the divergence in terms of opportunities available to students and others within the UK, across England and the devolved nations. The £65 million promised by the Welsh Government in March for the period 2022 to 2026 is not just an influx of money; it is an attempt, alongside Turing, to restructure opportunities according to the Erasmus+ model, and not to lose out on the partnerships that have already been built.

The press release, rather pointedly called “New International Learning Exchange programme to make good the loss of Erasmus+”, has this to say:

“The Programme will provide funding to enable students, staff and learners across universities, Further Education and Vocational Education and Training, Adult Education, youth work settings and schools to undertake a period of structured learning or work experience overseas, as well as enabling strategic partnerships … A fundamental principle of the programme will be reciprocity. Where necessary, the programme will fund costs related to the inward mobility of learners, teachers and young people from partner organisations abroad. This will enable existing partnerships which have been built up under Erasmus+ to continue and help to create new ones”.


Quite simply, Wales is trying to recreate Erasmus+. Scotland has said it wants Erasmus+ back, and Northern Ireland looks as though it will get both Erasmus+, courtesy of Ireland, and Turing. Meanwhile, England, without the direct political representation that could make the case for itself, as is increasingly true on so many matters, is left having to make do with Turing on its own, with no promise of further development of that scheme.

I have some other questions. The applications for Turing have now closed, so when will the Government publish detailed statistics, including the educational establishments participating, the number of participants involved per country, and the numbers per type of exchange? How will they monitor the effectiveness of Turing, and what criteria will they use? Will they commit to a longer cycle of funding? Will they, as Wales has decided to do, expand the scheme to take advantage of the links that already exist, and include other types of exchange, as well as the staff trips that so many colleges, including further education colleges, have, through Erasmus+, found so valuable in developing new ideas?

Will Turing be expanded to include partnerships and collaborative projects, such as the skills sector partnerships, crucial to the identification of emerging skills gaps across Europe, including gaps in digital skills? For so many current projects simply to be dropped through the loss of Erasmus+ would surely be a massive waste and a blow to educational development in this country—not to mention the jobs that would be lost. Will Turing reintroduce reciprocity in funding? That would be a key aspect of any claim for it to be a viable cultural exchange programme. I look forward to the Government’s response.

Finally, with regard to school trips from the EU, it is, again, the obsessive need to control our borders—we come back to the Home Office—that has led to the passport and visa changes on 1 October. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said in the House on 9 June that this would not lead to a fall in trips to the UK, and the Minister here today may back that view up, but the people we should all listen to are surely those who run the relevant businesses. The Guardian reported on 4 June the trip organisers’ view that there might be up to 375,000 fewer trips. The noble Baroness’s response —that the Government were bringing the regulations into line only with those for non-EU countries—was disingenuous, because within Europe the EU identity card is used as a passport, while on both sides the loss of the list of travellers scheme will mean the cancellation of trips, because some students will not be able to participate.

It will be the less well-off students who lose out—the opposite of what the Government claim they intend to achieve on our side with the Turing scheme. Will they monitor what effect these actions have on the number of school trips from Europe? If the numbers do fall, what effect will that have on the economy, including that of cities such as Canterbury, which depend so much on education?