Youth Mobility Scheme: EU

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although I am not sure what she means by the first album. We are talking about a comprehensive agreement. The EU has already indicated that it would be willing to discuss, and of course we should not enter agreements that are not to our advantage.

As the Government know, a youth mobility scheme would not lead to a return to freedom of movement. After all, under the terms of the existing scheme, youth mobility visas are limited in duration and the number of eligible young people is capped. Delivering such a scheme would provide a return on investment in the form of soft power, which was never seemingly factored into the approach of the previous Conservative Government. The scheme that the Liberal Democrats propose is familiar and tried and tested; it allows those aged 18 to 30 to live, work and study in the countries involved for a set period.

The advantages of a youth mobility scheme go far beyond the extension to a new generation of young people of the opportunities that many of us took for granted in our own youth. The wholly inadequate deal with the EU negotiated by the previous Conservative Government has done enormous damage to British businesses. We have seen soaring import costs, increased workforce shortages and reams of red tape, which have created huge barriers to growth. Exports by small businesses have dropped by 30%, and 20,000 small firms across the UK have stopped all exports to the EU. The UK faces acute labour shortages in sectors such as hospitality, the arts, entertainment and retail—exactly the kinds of jobs that young people visiting the UK for a few years might take on.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the advantages of the Erasmus scheme was that it provided funding so that people from disadvantaged backgrounds could take advantage of the scheme, and that any youth mobility scheme should ensure access to everyone?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the Erasmus programme. Our young people—those aged under 30—have struggled more, I think, than other age groups to overcome the impact of the pandemic and lockdown on many of their formative experiences. The Government should be looking for every opportunity to offer them the kinds of experiences that would have been available to those who are now in older age groups when they were younger.

Young people visiting the UK for a few years might take on jobs in the hospitality sector while studying, immersing themselves in our culture or improving their grasp of our language. Across the country, small and medium-sized businesses are struggling, and a youth mobility scheme would offer British businesses a real opportunity to address staffing shortages by welcoming young people from EU countries for a limited period, bringing fresh talent and energy to our workforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on two counts: first, on securing this debate—she always holds me to account on European matters at Cabinet Office questions, and I very much welcome the scrutiny that she provides—and, secondly, on her appointment as the Government’s trade envoy to North Africa. The case that she is making today about deepening trade links is one that I am sure she will be able to employ in that role as well, so I look forward to her doing that and to hearing all about it.

When I hear the hon. Lady speak about a more co-operative, close relationship with the European Union, I entirely agree. That is precisely what the Government are seeking to build. I would, however, introduce one note of caution. As the hon. Lady can imagine, I read the Financial Times avidly; it is a fine, authoritative publication. However, although we now move towards the first of the UK-EU summits, we have not actually entered that intense period of negotiation yet. She should perhaps treat what she reads in the FT, including about what that negotiation will consist of, with a little caution.

I will turn in a moment to the specific issue of youth mobility, but I want to set in context the EU-UK reset this Government have embarked on. First, I am very pleased with the progress that has been made so far. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that, going into this more intense phase of negotiation, it was very important that the new European Commission was formally in place. That happened in December and we can now move into this new phase. However, the Government have already been making significant strides forward. There have been dozens of ministerial visits across Government and we have been working co-operatively with our European counterparts.

The Prime Minister met the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on 2 October. I was with them in Brussels when that meeting took place. They agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK, put it on a more solid, stable footing and then move forward in their discussions ahead of the first of the summits. The Foreign Secretary attended the Foreign Affairs Council in October, the Chancellor attended the Eurogroup meeting in December and I have had frequent meetings and discussions with my counterpart at the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič. Those discussions are, of course, ongoing.

On 3 February—Monday of next week—we will see the Prime Minister attend the European Council. He was invited by the President of the Council António Costa, who I met with the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street just before Christmas. As I say, we will then move towards the summit, which we have said will take place in the first half of this year.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

The Minister is giving a good account of the diaries of various Ministers. If meetings were a measure of success, we would all say that the Government were very successful, but they are not. When will we see outcomes from this rapprochement with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not share the hon. Member’s downbeat assessment, and neither does the European Union. Maroš Šefčovič himself said last week that our relationship with the EU is definitely in a more positive place. I hope the hon. Member welcomes that.

What we have is a very co-operative relationship. For example, I am responsible for the Windsor framework taskforce, which is in the new EU relations secretariat at the Cabinet Office, in the centre of Government. I am sure he would welcome the creation of this new secretariat as it prioritises this relationship, which is precisely what is being argued for in this debate. I will give him an example from when we first came to office, that of dental amalgam and EU regulations on mercury. In previous Administrations, that would have blown up into a significant row, but it did not. With our new, mature relationship, it was dealt with very pragmatically. He will not have to wait too long until the EU-UK summit, after which he will be able to see the concrete progress and deliverables he is asking for starting to take place. I say gently that he should welcome the progress and the constructive relationship that we have. I hope he does not have too long to wait for some more concrete outcomes, which are hugely important.

We are taking the discussions on the reset forward, and they fall, essentially, into three categories—three pillars, if you like. The first is about foreign policy and a more structured defence co-operation. We have already made progress. The Foreign Secretary and the High Representative have already agreed on six-monthly foreign policy dialogues. That agreement is already in place and we will move further forward on that.

The second category is about the safety of our citizens, so on judicial and law enforcement co-operation. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) challenges me on concrete progress and we have already increased the National Crime Agency presence at Europol. I visited Europol in opposition, as did the now Prime Minister and the now Home Secretary. We are determined to work more closely together on serious and organised crime—from the vile crime of people smuggling to issues such as fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking—to ensure that there is nowhere on our continent where criminals can find a place to hide from the force of the law.

The third category is looking to make significant progress on trade and reducing trade barriers. We were elected on a manifesto with a very firm framework that we would not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement, but that manifesto contained examples of what we wanted to secure, which we have a mandate from the people to negotiate. That includes a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will reduce trade barriers significantly for agriculture and agri-food products, mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our services industries, and what we can do to make it so much easier for our touring artists to once again be able to tour the EU, and for European artists to come here. On those aspects that are within the trade and co-operation agreement as it stands, we will already have to move forward on negotiation. A good example of that is energy, where the trade and co-operation agreement is already putting an obligation on the UK and EU to look at how they operate the emissions trading scheme. There is a substantial agenda that the Government will be taking forward.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

Opposition Members had 14 years to bring about reform of the House of Lords, if that was what they wanted to do—but alas, they did not. Instead, this Government are taking an immediate first step on the road to reform of the House of Lords. It is long overdue and we are getting on with it.

Clause 5 simply establishes the short title of the legislation as the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2024”. If the Bill is passed in 2025, the short title will automatically be changed to the “House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025”.

I note that a number of new clauses have been tabled. Of course, I look forward to hearing from the newest zealous member of the cause for constitutional reform, the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), as well as from the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and others. I will not prejudge what they have to say on these matters, but I note again that this is a focused Bill that delivers on a clear manifesto commitment.

As I have said, the Bill is the first step in the Government’s broader plans to reform the second Chamber. We recognise that other elements of that agenda are more complex, and it is right that we take time to consider them properly.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Why are the Government proceeding with such timidity and “first steps” when they have such a large majority and could push through their will if they wanted to?

[Ellie Reeves]

This is an immediate first step on the road to wider reform, and one that is long overdue since the 1999 Act. It is right that we are getting on with it, and doing so in the first Session of this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

As ever, wisdom from the Deepings. The truth is that this will not make the upper House a better Chamber for scrutiny. All it will do is remove some of the Labour party’s opponents from that House.

The Labour party promised in its manifesto that

“The next Labour government will…bring about an immediate modernisation”

of the Lords. The manifesto promised that that modernisation would consist of a mandatory retirement age of 80, a new participation requirement, a strengthening of

“the circumstances in which disgraced members can be removed”

from that House, reform of the appointments process, and improvement of

“the national and regional balance of the second chamber.”

Although we on the Conservative Benches might not agree with those proposals, the Labour party promised to introduce them immediately, but the only immediate modernisation being undertaken is to remove a group of hard-working and diligent peers, including 33 Cross Benchers and their Convenor, for the crime of not being Labour party placements.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

As I am surprised that the Conservatives, as the so-called party of aspiration, are stalwartly defending the principle of hereditary peers. Do they not accept that, in a meritocracy, positions in the legislature should be open based on merit, not inheritance?

[Alex Burghart]

The point that we are making through our amendments is that the Labour party is undermining a key facet of the upper House: scrutiny. We are talking about a body of 88 hereditary peers who have already been performing that job, and have done nothing wrong, but are losing that job because of the measures introduced by the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 4 does not take into account illness or maternity and paternity leave, and that perhaps eight weeks is a little too brief?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

New clause 4 clearly sets out an intention to deliver on what Labour’s manifesto wished to introduce, and I would be happy to work with Government Ministers and the Liberal Democrats spokesman to ensure that we get this legislation into the best possible shape.

Some of the attendance records in the upper House leave me a little shocked. In the 2019-24 Parliament, of the 966 Members eligible to attend at least some of the last Parliament, 28 did not attend at all—did not even bother to turn up—and 116 attended on less than 10% of the sitting days, which is not particularly active. I quite understand why Labour Front Benchers, when in opposition, alighted on that and felt that it needed to be included in their manifesto. That is why I tabled new clause 4. I firmly believe that there is support for it not only on the Labour Benches—Labour Members stood on their manifesto, so presumably they support that proposal—but on the Opposition Benches. During that same period, 158 Members of the upper House voted in less than 10% of the Divisions they were eligible to vote in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The position of the Lords Spiritual throws up more questions than it answers, and that is why I deeply urge those on the Treasury Bench to look at my amendment and to ask whether they can make their legislation better. Can they be the Government that I think they wish to be, in order to deliver that change?

[Freddie van Mierlo]

I certainly share much of the right hon. Gentleman’s zeal on the removal of the Bishops from the Lords. Does he share my concerns about the privileged speaking and seating positions that they have in the Lords?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I do, and if we have the opportunity to divide on my amendment, I am looking forward to the hon. Gentleman joining me in the Lobby. We can sort that problem out with this piece of legislation by voting to get rid of them, and therefore there will be no privileged seating arrangements, and a little bit more space for the wife of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the husband of the hon. Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) and all other peers on the Government Benches, as that is where I think they sit.

I can go through all the arguments on the presence of Bishops in Parliament. Only one other sovereign country has clerics in its parliamentary body, which is Iran. I do not think that is necessarily the best model for us to base ourselves on. This piece of legislation gives us the opportunity to have a more reflective parliamentary body. Across Europe, many countries have a strong faith, where religion plays an incredibly important part in national debate and national discourse. But none of those countries, whether France, Germany, Italy, Spain or Portugal, feel the need to have that assured clerical block of Bishops in their legislature.

Less than 2% of the British population attend Anglican services on a Sunday. By taking this action to remove the bishops, we recognise that Britain is a changed country. Britain is very different today from how it was in 1999. If we look forward to when Lords reform legislation next comes forward, probably in another 20 years, Britain will be changed again. Let us use this opportunity to ensure the upper House is more reflective of our nation.

The reality is that the Lords Spiritual do not take part in many Divisions—14%. If the Labour party introduces participation requirements, it would probably mean the exclusion of a number of bishops. Data has shown that the support for having bishops in the House of Lords is incredibly low. Indeed, even in the Anglican Church support for having bishops in the House of Lords is incredibly low. Some 60% of priests back reform to the bishop’s Bench. Going back to the 2012 legislation, there were proposals to shrink the bishop’s Bench from its current 26 to 12. Yet the Labour party has shied away from all attempts to do even the most modest reform.

There are no credible examples of where it is reasonable to have bishops legislating on our constituents. The only argument from the Labour party seems to be that this is a simple Bill. Well, this is a simple amendment. It is not right that so many of our constituents who do not have an Anglican faith are legislated on by Anglican bishops. We have to make these changes and we have to seize the opportunity, because this will be the last and only opportunity to make them while this Government are in power.