UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Earl of Courtown Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

I will continue to lead negotiations with the Commission. I look forward to the next annual UK-EU summit, where the Government will continue to build that new strategic partnership. That is what a grown-up, pragmatic relationship looks like. We work together under shared aims for mutually beneficial solutions to our shared problems. That is the approach the Government are taking and that is the approach that is delivering results. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, there is little doubt across the House that the opportunity to live, study and work abroad can bring real benefits for young people. It enables them to experience different cultures, encounter new ways of thinking, build confidence and form relationships and friendships that can last a lifetime. Those objectives are, in themselves, entirely laudable. However, good intentions are not enough. If this arrangement is to command confidence, it must be fair, accessible and genuinely mutually beneficial. It is therefore right that we scrutinise carefully both the financial and practical implications of what His Majesty’s Government have agreed.

One of the most immediate questions raised by this announcement is whether it will represent genuine value for money for the British taxpayer. It is concerning that the Government have been unable to define any cap on the number of EU students who may come to the United Kingdom under this arrangement, nor have they ruled out a wider youth mobility scheme that could further increase the inflow of young people from the EU. Under the proposed deal, European students would be able to study in the UK for up to a year while continuing to pay tuition fees to their home institutions.

When this scheme last operated, the imbalance was stark. In 2018, almost 32,000 young people came to the UK through Erasmus, compared with around 17,000 UK students who travelled in the opposite direction. The result was an estimated net cost to the UK taxpayer of more than £200 million per year. The media reported this morning that the total cost to the British taxpayer from this new scheme could be as high as £8.75 billion. At a time when young people in this country are already facing rising living costs, spiralling unemployment and diminished opportunities to buy homes and to save and invest their money—problems largely stemming from this Government’s own policy choices—we must be extremely careful about entering into arrangements that risk British taxpayers subsidising European students to study here.

Whether or not a taxpayer’s own child benefits from this scheme, the cost is borne by everyone. If parents across the country are being asked to help fund opportunities for other people’s children to study abroad, we must be confident and able to demonstrate that this delivers benefits not just for the individual participant but for the country as a whole. What assurances can the Minister give the House that this will not again become an asymmetrical arrangement? Can she guarantee that participation in Erasmus+ from 2027 will not result in a net cost to the British taxpayer of the kind we saw previously? Can she please tell us how value for money for the taxpayer will be assessed and communicated?

Closely linked to this is the question of equitable access. It is easy to predict who is most likely to benefit from schemes of this nature: those who studied languages at school and travelled abroad with their families, and whose educational and social background already equip them to take advantage of international opportunities. Without careful design, Erasmus risks becoming little more than a publicly subsidised gap year for young people who already enjoy significant privilege. Although the Government have said that financial support will be available for disadvantaged students, funding alone is insufficient if those disadvantaged students are unaware of the scheme, lack institutional encouragement or do not see it as something for people like them. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that this scheme is actively promoted and supported in schools, colleges and universities serving disadvantaged communities? What concrete steps will be taken to ensure that those who would benefit most from international mobility are not, once again, the least likely to access it?

I would also welcome the Government’s response on how the new arrangement will sit alongside existing UK mobility programmes. The United Kingdom currently operates the Turing scheme, which was designed to expand opportunities for students to study and work abroad, well beyond the European Union. Against that background, it would be helpful for the House to understand what the future holds for the Turing scheme once association with Erasmus+ begins in 2027. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can tell us how, in choosing to reassociate with Erasmus+, the Government intend to preserve the broader international reach that Turing was specifically designed to support. Will opportunities for global mobility beyond Europe be maintained at their current level, or do the Government envisage a narrowing of focus back towards the EU alone?

As I indicated earlier, this scheme must be able to not only deliver benefits but demonstrate clearly that it represents value for money for the taxpayer. Although the Government have outlined the initial cost of association, experience tells us that such programmes can become significantly more expensive over time, particularly where participation is uneven or demand exceeds expectations. It would therefore be reassuring to hear what safeguards are in place to prevent costs escalating in the years ahead.

The Government have said that rejoining Erasmus will cost £570 million in 2027 for a one-year membership but declined to say what the future costs will be. Can the Minister now tell us what they will be? It is reported that Brussels plans to increase funding for the scheme from 2028 by more than 50%, from around €26 billion to €41 billion. This, plus the extra costs associated with joining EU programmes after Brexit, means the bloc could charge Britain £1.25 billion a year between 2028 and 2034. Can the Minister confirm whether these figures are correct?

Also, if participation once again becomes markedly unbalanced, with substantially more students coming to the UK than travelling abroad, what mechanisms will exist to address that? Will the Government be able to renegotiate the terms of participation, adjust financial contributions or take corrective action to ensure that the UK is not locked into a persistently disadvantageous position? Can the Minister tell us what projected cost this programme will have to universities, which may lose out on international student fees as a result of this policy?

Finally, there will understandably be concern in this House and beyond that this EU reset could amount to a gradual reversal of the settlement reached when the United Kingdom left the European Union. What protections are in place to ensure that the UK is not drawn into open-ended financial commitments, regulatory alignment or governance structures over which it has limited control? Crucially, what clear mechanisms exist for the UK to withdraw or adjust its participation should this arrangement cease to serve our national interest?

There is broad consensus across this House that international mobility can be a powerful force for good, but good will must be matched by responsibility. If this scheme is to succeed, it must deliver value for money, widen opportunity rather than entrench privilege, and sit comfortably within a UK-EU relationship based on co-operation without dependency. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points and to greater clarity on how the Government intend to ensure that this agreement works not just in theory but in practice for young people across the whole United Kingdom.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement and the achievement. We regret only that the Government are moving so slowly. I note that this means we differ considerably from the Conservative Front Bench, although I was relieved that the noble Earl’s words were a little less hysterical than the front pages of the Telegraph and the Mail today. If we are going to pursue the reset further, as my party strongly supports, and move towards dynamic alignment across the board—and, therefore, closer association with the customs union, which will have to come next—the Government will need to change their language and spend more time discussing the benefits as against the costs, which my Conservative colleague, the Telegraph and the Mail have stressed so heavily this morning.

I declare an interest. I taught many students from other European Union countries in my last two jobs in universities, one of whom is the President of his country and extremely active on European security; a number of others are now in leading positions in public life in their countries and good friends of the United Kingdom. That is one of the benefits we get from exchanges. On the imbalance we had last time, an active scheme to encourage British students to spend time in other countries would be of enormous benefit to this country. It would lead to people who understand other countries, can do business with them, understand their politics and then enter public service here or elsewhere, to our mutual benefit.

I regret the language of the Statement. It is defensive and therefore wrong. It talks about only “the national interest” and “sovereignty”. I am sure the Minister will agree that the only country in the world that is fully sovereign is North Korea. In other countries, sovereignty has to be compromised by international co-operation. As the leader of Reform in effect makes clear, the alternative to membership of the European Union is not full sovereignty but dependence on the United States, which is not an easy alternative at the present time.

I suggest that the Government should be talking about shared interests, common security, the benefits as against the costs and the fact that our contributions helped save this country money in many ways. When the Conservative Government took us out of the European Union, we had to set up separate agencies and recruit additional public servants. We lost the European Medicines Agency in London, which was a great boon to our pharmaceutical industry, and a number of other things. The benefits absolutely need to be stressed and I encourage the Minister to say to her colleagues, in particular Nick Thomas-Symonds, that the sort of language they are using will not persuade the bulk of the British public that we need to be closer to the European Union.

We now know, on very strong evidence, that we have lost a lot of economic growth since we have left, which means we have also lost tax revenue. On goods and services, we know that we need to go back to closer relations. I encourage the Minister to go further.