Cultural and Education Exchanges

Question for Short Debate

Asked by

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.

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.

My Lords, I just want to thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate. It is not the first time we have talked about this matter. The last time I spoke to it was on 9 June in the Chamber, when the Home Office was dealing with it. I simply want to say that because I was foolish enough to think that the existing arrangements that allow people to come from schools in Europe might be extended to pupils anywhere in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is a perfectly lovely woman, rapped my fingers and slapped my wrists and made me aware of my own ignorance on such matters—whereupon I undertook to find out whether such school groups on collective passports can continue to enjoy the benefits that the noble Earl so eloquently adumbrated.

Those inquiries yielded this fact: the Council of Europe, through a 1961 treaty, holds a reciprocal arrangement—still valid—whereby countries that ratified it are able to use collective passports. Those countries are Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The Council of Europe has also confirmed that the United Kingdom has expressed no intention to withdraw from the treaty, in which case the collective passport is still valid, the visits can still take place and the fears the noble Earl expressed for poorer pupils can be met. What is to stop us doing it? I hope that the noble Baroness from the Department for Education will not rap my wrists in the same way the Home Office did, and will give us some assurances on this point and on how well they can take the publicity for this forward at present.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on what will be a brief but important debate. The Government must up the offer on the Turing scheme so that it becomes the equal or better of Erasmus+. To take away a successful scheme and replace it with a lesser one is unforgiveable. Yes, on the plus side, the new Turing scheme widens the potential destinations from the EU to worldwide; that is a big plus but the losses are greater.

No longer will the scheme include teaching and college staff and youth workers. UK students will still have to pay tuition fees while they are studying abroad and the scheme is funded for only its first year. I am sure that noble Lords more knowledgeable than I am will talk to the advantages, if any, and disadvantages—many—of the Turing scheme.

What I really want to say to the Government, however, is: invest more in our young people. Make sure that we create restless minds and an understanding of culture and cultures other than our own, promote different experiences, and ensure that all young people have this experience and opportunity.

Erasmus versus Turning is but part of a bigger picture, which paints a reductionist attitude to our future by the Government. It is as though they do not understand that the future well-being of our nation rests on the quality of young people’s thinking, understanding, behaviour and ability. These are terrible times, particularly for our young people, and I really fear for their future. We need to show them that we care and that we want the best for them, setting them an example of leadership, generosity, understanding and empathy. For now, however, and for this debate, I will be happy if the Government make the changes that ensure that Turing is the equal or better of Erasmus+.

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl on securing this debate. I declare an interest as an academic. I have taught, and do teach, exchange students. I also had the benefit of doing one of my degrees in the United States, at the University of Pennsylvania, where I was a Thouron scholar.

As we have heard, existing exchange programmes are wholly beneficial for the student, the sending and receiving institutions, the local community and the sending and receiving nations. As a nation, we benefit enormously from overseas students.

I advocate utilising more of the overseas aid budget to fund exchange scholarships. This could be through using aid to allocate scholarship vouchers to developing nations, enabling them to send bright students to study at UK universities. The vouchers would be wholly redeemable at UK higher education institutions. The developing nations would gain graduates who can contribute to the economic well-being of the nation; aid would thus be an investment for the future. UK universities would benefit from having these students, as would local economies where the universities are based. The United Kingdom would benefit from the expansion of soft power, and utilising aid in this way would avoid problems of tracking where the money is going.

We already have some excellent scholarship programmes for overseas students. Expanding substantially what we already offer is in everyone’s interest. I hope my noble friend the Minister will indicate a willingness, at the very least, to discuss the proposal with colleagues and feed back the result of her deliberations.

My Lords, this year’s language trends survey, just published by the British Council, shows that the pandemic has exacerbated the decline in international opportunities for primary and secondary schools in England. This includes trips abroad, partnering with a school abroad and involvement in cross-cultural projects.

Some 64% of primaries and 38% of state secondaries reported no international activities at all, compared with only 11% of independent schools. These experiences give pupils an opportunity to use the languages they are learning, which helps motivation and access to a different culture. Nearly two-thirds of language students at university say they were inspired by an exchange trip at school.

In addition, the journal Schools Week has reported that “One little-noticed casualty” of Brexit

“is Britain’s lost access to the EU’s ‘list of travellers’ scheme, which lets non-EU migrant pupils travel on school trips without usual visa rules.”

Some pupils now risk exclusion from school trips, with disadvantaged pupils the most affected. Can the Minister comment and raise this with the Home Office?

Problems at school affect languages at university. UCAS figures show a staggering decline in MFL applicants, and one of the main reasons is the end of UK participation in the Erasmus+ programme, which took students to well over 100 countries—not just Europe. Language skills and cross-cultural experience gained during the year abroad are qualities that employers value. Graduates who have spent a year abroad are 23% less likely to be unemployed than those who have not.

The replacement Turing scheme is full of uncertainty. Echoing some of the questions asked by other noble Lords, I ask the Minister to say whether there are any plans to make Turing reciprocal, as Erasmus+ was, and if not, why not; whether there are any plans to continue its funding for more than just one year; and whether its scope will be as broad and inclusive as Erasmus.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and other colleagues have clearly laid out the risks of our young people, especially artists and students, being disadvantaged by the loss of the Erasmus scheme and the difficulties in accessing work and travel visas. I declare my interests at Oxford University, as noted in the register.

However, it is not the particular needs of students and the issues relating to the replacement Turing scheme to which I wish to refer. Before Brexit and Covid, there was already a widespread move away from international and cross-cultural engagement towards nationalism and what one might call community introversion. Like many other problems, this has been exacerbated and accelerated by the pandemic, not only because of the difficulties of travelling but because, when faced with the anxiety created by the risks of travel and engagement with others we do not know well, turning back towards known people, places and activities is only natural.

We cannot therefore assume that, in the post-pandemic era, people will naturally create, or even take up, opportunities to engage with other communities, countries and cultures, despite it being hugely enriching and maturing. We will need to provide extra encouragement and facilities for young people to engage with those in other countries.

There are already networks that could facilitate this with those young people less likely to go to university. I am referring to international networks associated with faith communities—among Christian communities, the Scouting and Guiding movements, the Boys’ Brigade, the Girls Brigade and the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme—and those organisations of other faith communities. My early experience of other cultures came through such networks, and the value and connections were maintained long after the visits. They are inexpensive because accommodation is often provided by families associated with the organisations. Can the Minister advise us whether the Government are prepared to consider including such approaches to enable our young people to expand their cultural awareness and experience?

My Lords, as the noble Earl confirmed, the issue here goes much further than simply school and college cultural exchange visits, although all the points he and others made about the disaster that will follow the lack of Erasmus+ and all the human, cultural and institutional contact that will be lost rang very true, as did the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about the need for reciprocity.

Many Members of your Lordships’ House have been appalled by the way the Government sold the cultural sector, one of the most important and vibrant sectors of our economy, down the river when the Home Office refused to allow in the EU-UK trade deal a sensible, pragmatic and mutually beneficial visa and associated permits system for those who wish to perform abroad—something that operated successfully since 1972, as many others said.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has repeatedly answered questions on this at the Dispatch Box. He continues to blame the EU for the failure to arrive at a deal on this, although all the evidence seems to say otherwise. He has said at the Dispatch Box that, absent a pan-EU- UK deal, bilateral agreements are the way forward, but details are extremely hard to establish. Which countries are involved? Where are we with each of them? What is the timescale? Has the Home Office agreed with the approach? Is it prepared to offer the reciprocal arrangements and visas necessary for EU citizens to visit this country?

As others have said, the Minister has a reputation for openness and transparency at the Dispatch Box. The issue before us is vital to the creative industries. I hope she can give clear and unequivocal answers to the questions I have asked and the others that have been raised today.

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interest as master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. This is an important if brief debate, founded on a simple and important truth: young people, especially students, have their education and personal development enormously enriched by meeting and sharing experiences with people from other cultures and backgrounds, especially if they themselves experience that culture and background too.

Of course, we had a programme that delivered precisely this: Erasmus+, which many noble Lords referred to. In 2019, 30,000 UK students and trainees travelled to all parts of Europe to take up places on the scheme. No less importantly, 17,000 EU students came here. More than 4,000 university institutions across Europe participate in Erasmus. Yet we have thrown it all away, all in search of some kind of little Englander, pure Brexiter mythology.

The Government claim that their replacement Turing scheme will be better and more global, but here is the rub: it is a pale shadow of Erasmus. The UK Government are putting in less money than the EU put into Erasmus just for the UK. Universities up and down the land are already doing exchanges across the globe. It is not either global or EU; it has been, up to now, both, but no more. This is a tragedy for our young people. We have thrown away access to the largest, most active and best-developed exchange scheme in the world. Our country and our life chances are diminished by this decision.