Moved by
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 October be
approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Education () (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for considering
this draft legislation.
The primary purpose of this statutory instrument is to reflect in
domestic law the fact that the UK is no longer a member of the
European University Institute convention since the UK left the
European Union. It does so by ensuring that no rights, powers,
liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures
that derive from the European University Institute convention are
retained on the UK statute book through the provisions of the
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The exception to this is
where their retention is appropriate or supports a period of
reasonable adjustment for staff. Where rights are saved relating
to the legal proceedings immunity and an income tax privilege for
UK-linked institute staff, this instrument will establish the
circumstances after which they no longer apply.
The European University Institute in Florence is an international
centre for postgraduate and postdoctoral studies and research
with a European focus. It was established by an international
convention in 1972, which the UK signed in 1975. The convention
states that accession to the convention is restricted to EU
member states. When the UK ceased to be one, our formal
membership of the institute also ended.
While the UK’s membership of the convention ceased on EU exit, we
put in place an extension of the previous arrangements beyond the
end of the transition period until 31 December 2022. This was to
ensure that UK staff and students at the institute could continue
in their posts and with their studies while we considered options
for a future relationship with the institute.
After a series of constructive and detailed negotiations between
the UK and the institute that has taken place over 18 months, it
has not been possible to conclude an agreement to define future
UK engagement at this time. Our focus now is on confirming the
status of UK-linked staff and UK-funded students at the institute
as soon as possible. The UK will take appropriate measures to
allow current students to continue their studies at the
institute. We will continue to pay the grants we have committed
to for students who have started courses already.
The Government value the work of the European University
Institute and the long and close collaboration we have shared.
Many talented UK students have studied for PhDs at the institute,
with financial support from the UK Government, and it is an
important forum for collaboration on education and research. I
reassure noble Lords that the UK remains committed to strong
research collaboration with our European partners. We continue to
work together constructively with the institute to reach an
agreed settlement that provides for current staff and students.
Once that is concluded, we look forward to returning to the
question of our future relationship with the institute.
With this instrument, we are taking steps to provide for legal
certainty by revoking the retained EU law relating to the
convention either where it no longer has any practical
application following the UK leaving the EU, and is therefore
redundant, or where it is no longer appropriate for it to be
retained. This statutory instrument has no bearing on the UK’s
membership of the institute. Its purpose is simply to ensure that
no provisions remain in UK law except as appropriate or to
provide a period of reasonable adjustment for staff. I beg to
move.
(CB)
My Lords, I completely understand the need for this statutory
instrument, given that it has not proved possible to negotiate a
formal post-Brexit relationship between the UK and the European
University Institute—although it is very welcome that
appointments to academic posts at the EUI will remain nationality
blind. I also understand that this SI is unamendable, which is
regrettable because I would like to flag up one specific concern
and ask the Minister whether there is any way in which she is
able and willing to follow it up.
The problem arises that academic staff are generally employed at
the EUI on one or other form of rolling contract. As the SI is
currently phrased, the staff concerned would lose the exemption
from UK tax liability as and when they renew their employment
contracts. In other words, it is a serious change to their terms
and conditions. This would also produce some inequities between
academic staff. Some of them would lose the exemption at the end
of this calendar year, whereas others on renewed or extended
contracts in different circumstances would enjoy that exemption
for up to five years.
4.45pm
In view of this, Regulation 7 of the SI could easily have been
amended to replace the term “does not include” renewals and
extensions with saying that it includes them. It would mean that
employees could continue to benefit from the tax situation for
whatever their period of employment at the EUI is, and it would
still only be available to those employed there before the
regulations came into force. Moreover, all academic contracts at
the EUI are finite, so this would not have given rise to an
indefinite commitment on the part of the UK. Overall, this would
have made a big difference to a relatively small group of
people.
As it stands, the statutory instrument may well have unintended
negative consequence for the UK and the UK’s relationship with
the EUI. Many UK-linked colleagues spend more than 90 days in the
UK and would therefore be liable to UK tax if the tax exemption
were to expire. It would not be financially viable, in all cases,
for these colleagues to continue to work at the EUI in this
situation. They may, therefore, have to choose whether to cut
their links with the UK, including their UK universities, or to
cut short their employment with the EUI. Either way, it is quite
possible that links between the UK and the EUI could be
substantially weakened, to the detriment of both the UK and the
EUI. So I ask again whether the Minister can find any way at all
to iron out what might look like a small wrinkle but would be
quite a considerable change to the terms and conditions of a
relatively small group of people for a finite period.
(LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has set out the
position very clearly. We are indebted to my friend Professor
Dame Helen Wallace—the wife of my noble friend Lord Wallace of
Saltaire—who has worked for many years at the EUI and was very
concerned about these provisions on behalf on the staff who work
there. As the Minister said, it has been an excellent institute;
it has provided some really valuable work for the UK, as well as
the EU, and we are loath to see that disappear. So I urge her to
make sure that we negotiate as well as we can to see how far we
can continue to work with the EUI.
I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said about the
very simple amendment of changing “does not include” to “does
include”. I realise that SIs are pretty much unamendable, but if
there is any way that this could be done, it would make a very
significant difference to a group of people who have long worked
on our behalf with the EU and the academics there. It is a shame;
it is one of the consequences of Brexit, which occasionally we
just have to put up with, but it seems that this will
disadvantage both the academic staff and the students at this
amazing institute.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, this affects a very small number of people, yet it
seems manifestly unfair as between those people. I do not
understand why it was necessary to negotiate a cessation of terms
and conditions that bore, in very differentiated ways, on
different current members of staff of the EUI. I remind noble
Lords that the “EU” in EUI does not stand for “European Union”
but for the first two words of the European University
Institute.
of Darlington (Lab)
We regret that we have had to get to this stage, but we
understand why the Government are bringing forward this measure
today. Could the Minister perhaps update us on where we are with
the Brexit freedoms Bill? It strikes me that this is the sort of
thing that we are actually managing to deal with as and when it
comes up, whereas the Government, at one point, had an intention
to introduce a single piece of legislation. However, that all
seems to have gone a bit quiet. It was a mad idea, but perhaps
the Minister could write to us—if she cannot respond today—on how
the Government will proceed. Doing it this way, although not
perfect, at least has the benefit of the Government being able to
consider each measure as we go, and it allows other Members of
this House and another place to assist the Government in their
deliberations.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s introduction to the SI.
Can she make it clear whether the Government have failed to
negotiate our continued involvement, or decided that that is not
something they want? Intriguingly, she said that we might return
to this, so may I press her to be explicit about the Government’s
intention? Is it their policy objective to re-establish the
previous arrangements?
I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said about the 35
members of staff. How long is the adjustment period to be? I
agree with those who have said that, although this is a small
number of people, we have responsibilities to them.
(Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate,
and I shall endeavour to respond to the issues that have been
raised. The noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins, Lady Garden and Lady
O’Neill, all asked whether there was an option to replace “does
not include” with “includes” in Regulation 7. I understand their
concerns in that regard.
While the UK’s membership of the European University Institute
convention ceased on EU exit, we put in place an extension of the
previous arrangements with the EUI beyond the end of the
transition period, until 31 December this year. This was to
protect the status of UK-linked staff and students at the EUI, so
that they could continue in their posts and with their studies
while we considered options for a future relationship with the
institute.
The Government’s long-standing policy is to grant privileges and
immunities only when there is a demonstrated and robust
functional need for the running of the institution, and never
solely for personal benefit. In this case, in the absence of a
negotiated international treaty compelling the Government to do
so, we are unable to continue to grant privileges and immunities
to EUI staff and students, including the UK-linked ones. The
saving of the income tax privilege and the legal proceedings
immunity for current staff is as considered appropriate and/or
intended to give a reasonable period for those staff at the EUI
to adjust, and they will be saved in relation to the current term
of their employment contract, without extension. While we
appreciate that some individuals may not have as long a period to
adjust as others, the policy represented by this statutory
instrument compares favourably with other situations where
privileges and immunities have been removed. In such cases, a
standard adjustment period of 30 days is usually afforded,
regardless of the individual’s employment situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, asked me some
broader questions about our position on keeping the conversation
open—if I can frame it like that—regarding the EUI. As she knows,
and as I said in my opening remarks, we have negotiated in good
faith and constructively, and hope that we will be in a position
to have further constructive conversations in future. I will
need, as the noble Baroness kindly suggested, to write to her in
relation to the Brexit freedoms Bill.
I know that your Lordships have a keen interest in the UK’s
relationship with the EUI, and the UK remains open to exploring
other opportunities for collaboration with the institute in
future. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is
important to have a tidy and coherent statute book following our
exit from the EU. I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
