Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) I beg to move, That this
House has considered research and development funding and Horizon
Europe. I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie —I
am trying to speak slowly enough that we might have the vote before
I start my substantive comments. I am grateful to have been granted
this debate to discuss the benefits of UK association with Horizon
Europe, just as the Government are at an important stage
of...Request free trial
(Sheffield Central)
(Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered research and development funding
and Horizon Europe.
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie —I am
trying to speak slowly enough that we might have the vote before
I start my substantive comments. I am grateful to have been
granted this debate to discuss the benefits of UK association
with Horizon Europe, just as the Government are at an important
stage of discussions with the European Commission. Research and
development are clearly integral to ambition for growth and the
productivity challenge that we face.
We have a special asset in the UK, in our universities. We often
use the phrase “world leading” a little too casually in this
place, but it certainly applies to our universities and the
research they do, which helps us build our economy, creates
innovative solutions to global problems and positions us
internationally. Universities pay their way many times over. For
every pound spent on public research funding, universities
deliver an average return of £9 to the UK economy. Importantly,
given the geographical spread of our universities, beyond the
golden triangle and across all four nations of the country,
R&D enables our universities working with business and
industry to lead prosperity in towns and cities in every part of
the UK. I know that from my city of Sheffield, where the
University of Sheffield’s advanced manufacturing research centre
is rightly held up as a model by Government—a model that would
not exist had it not been for European funding.
(in the Chair)
Order. Forgive me; I was expecting to hear a bell. We will
suspend the sitting for 15 minutes for the first vote and 10
minutes for any subsequent votes. I am not sure precisely how
many Divisions there are, so I will see you back in 15, 25, 35 or
45 minutes.
4.33pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
5.09pm
On resuming—
(in the Chair)
The sitting will run until 6.8 pm. Those with very agile mental
arithmetic will work out that I want to start the winding-up
speeches no later than quarter to 6.
It is good to see you again so soon, Mr Hosie. I think that, when
we were interrupted in such an untimely way, I was talking about
the AMRC in Sheffield. Its partnership with Boeing and
Rolls-Royce has shown how universities and industry can work
together effectively, and participation in Horizon and the
earlier framework programmes was vital to its development.
It is not just big companies—for example, Footprint, which is a
tool-making SME with hundreds of years of history in Sheffield,
has been involved with several Horizon-funded projects, including
as a lead industrial partner working with companies and
researchers across Europe to develop new additive manufacturing
processes for metal components for the aerospace sector. Its
chairman, Christopher Jewitt, said of Horizon that
“it’s important to rub shoulders with other manufacturers in
Europe…we are competing with the world”.
There is a lot at risk if we fail to associate with Horizon
Europe.
Let me use another example. EU-funded research and collaboration
laid the foundations for the University of Sheffield’s gene
therapy innovation and manufacturing centre, which is now
leveraging private investment to develop promising treatments for
millions of patients with life-threatening illnesses.
(Cambridge) (Lab)
Everywhere I go in Cambridge, the issue that is raised is
collaboration, collaboration, collaboration. I think that that is
the point that my hon. Friend is making. Does he agree that
without that collaboration UK science and research will be the
poorer?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to the point that
much of the debate around Horizon is focused on the funding, but
it is collaboration that is so important—not only in the way that
my hon. Friend describes but, as in the case of the gene therapy
innovation and manufacturing centre, in creating hundreds of
highly skilled local jobs.
(Ludlow) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It is
important that we talk about the significance of Horizon; I am
sure that he will go on to welcome the fact that negotiations
with the EU have now been reopened by the Government, and I am
sure that the Minister will be able to talk to that when he sums
up.
On collaboration, let me give the hon. Member one other pertinent
example, which has come to my attention as a result of the
Environmental Audit Committee’s work with universities, not just
in the golden triangle but including the hon. Gentleman’s
university in Sheffield. Imperial College was host to our
25th-anniversary celebration the other day, and the president
gave me a good example of the reach that Horizon has given the
UK, specifically in collaboration. He talked about the graphene
core 3 project, which had 160 partner organisations across 24
countries; allowed the UK research community to compete with the
US and China, which have significant infrastructure themselves;
and helped to spin out Bramble Energy, an industrial company that
is developing graphene. The industrial connections are important
as well.
(in the Chair)
Order. I do not mind slightly extended interventions when time
permits, but that was longer that some speeches I have heard.
Thank you, Mr Hosie, but it was nevertheless an important
intervention to hear and, given the authority of the Chair of the
Environmental Audit Committee, worth noting. I thank the right
hon. Gentleman for making it.
There are countless similar examples. The example that I was
giving about the gene therapy innovation and manufacturing centre
is similar in many ways. It is led by Professor Mimoun Azzouz,
who has won several prestigious EU framework programme awards. He
leads a consortium of 34 international partners from academia and
business, including big pharmaceutical companies, that is
progressing gene therapy approaches for industry and patients. It
is part-funded by the EU and part-funded by industry. The earlier
funding that he received was European Research Council funding.
The next step for his project is an ERC synergy grant, which will
not be open to him if we are reduced to third-country
participation in Horizon. That is an important point, and there
will be many similar projects.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
Some have suggested that the UK not only join the Horizon scheme
but press forward with aspects of the Pioneer programme to cement
ourselves as a global scientific powerhouse. Does the hon. Member
think that that is a realistic solution that will boost our
performance in research and development?
The hon. Member makes an important point and I will go on to
cover it in a little bit more detail.
Horizon and its predecessor programmes have been central to the
UK’s research success, which is why the Government made
association with Horizon Europe an aim throughout the Brexit
negotiations. Obviously, that aim fell victim to the Government’s
mishandling of the Northern Ireland protocol, but now that the
Windsor framework has been agreed, which we can all welcome, the
door is open again. I look to the Minister to reassure us, when
he responds to this debate, that the Government will take
advantage of that opportunity, because it is good news that these
discussions have been taking place.
When the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and
Technology met Commissioner Mariya Gabriel earlier this month,
she said that association must be on the “right terms”. Of course
that is right, but we need reassurance that behind her comments
there is a real commitment to securing the right terms so that we
can re-engage with Horizon Europe, because we should remember
that it is the single largest collaborative research programme in
the world. Let us dwell on that fact; alternatives to Horizon
Europe are not available. Horizon Europe provides participants
with unparalleled routes to international partnerships, both
within the EU and—importantly—beyond the EU.
I will give one final example from Sheffield. The University of
Sheffield’s Amos project illustrates how Horizon provides a
platform for collaboration with the world beyond Europe. The
university’s nuclear advanced manufacturing research centre leads
a €2.6 million four-year collaboration between European and
Canadian aerospace manufacturers and researchers, in order to
investigate the use of additive manufacturing techniques for
repair and manufacture of aerospace components. The project was
supported by Canadian funding agencies: the Consortium for
Aerospace Research and Innovation in Canada, or CARIC; and the
Naval Systems Engineering Resource Centre, or NSERC. However, it
was more attractive to them because of its association with the
Horizon programme.
Horizon is an established infrastructure—an ecosystem for leading
innovation and research—that has been built over four decades,
and built with the UK at its heart. It gives us a platform to
establish ourselves as global research leaders, where we have
been highly successful not just in securing grants but in shaping
the direction of international research programmes and in
training the next generation of scientists. It is a champions
league for research and development; it connects the best
countries with the best talent to produce the best results.
The UK received €7 billion in research funding between 2014 and
2020 as part of Horizon 2020, with 2,000 UK businesses
participating and €1.4 billion being awarded to UK industry. In
total, 31,000 collaborative links were established with countries
around the world, delivering scientific breakthroughs that
strengthen the breadth and diversity of both our trade and our
academic connections. Russell Group universities alone won grants
worth €1.8 billion through Horizon 2020, which was more than the
whole of France won.
The economic benefit of Horizon is huge but, as we have begun to
discuss, there are even more compelling reasons for association
with it. Horizon Europe offers unrivalled access to a ready-made
collaborative funding scheme, making it easier to work across
multiple countries. That point was made in a recent letter to the
Prime Minister from over 30 business leaders, who said that the
UK cannot do alone what Horizon Europe offers. Their letter
warned that a UK alternative to Horizon
“could not recreate…wide-ranging benefits”
of being part of the EU programme. While we are considering the
contributions of Select Committee Chairs, I will add that the
same point was made by the Conservative Chair of the Science and
Technology Committee, whose Committee will look at this issue
tomorrow. He said that
“the benefits of association go beyond the funding the government
can provide”.
Horizon also gives access to international markets and
strengthens trade. Without association, the UK is not eligible
for grants or investment from the European Innovation Council
fund, which supports small and medium-sized enterprises and
start-ups in developing disruptive innovations that are too risky
for private investors. Horizon projects not only fund innovation,
but bring together researchers, SMEs and multinationals to
develop new products and supply chains.
EU officials have expressed concerns about the UK’s willingness
to take part in the Horizon scheme, despite assurances that there
would be no expectation of membership payments for the two years
during which the UK was excluded from it. Does the hon. Gentleman
share my concern that ongoing delays may push UK-based
researchers to seek alternative access to funding by moving
operations out of Britain, causing us to lose some of the
brightest minds in the UK?
It was because of those concerns that I sought today’s debate.
Government policy for quite some time—since the referendum—seems
to have been going through a period of hesitancy, so I am looking
for reassurance from the Minister, particularly given some of the
issues about funding. We know that we will not have to make a
contribution for those two years as part of the reassurances on
the EU side, so we need to engage effectively in those
discussions.
Through access to international markets, Horizon provides a
springboard to partnerships with businesses and universities
worldwide, and strengthens our position as a global player. This
will be absolutely necessary to achieve the Government’s ambition
of becoming a science superpower.
To train and recruit more scientists and researchers—the
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set a
target of 150,000 more by 2030—we need to attract top talent from
abroad. We will lose out without Horizon, which has drawn
international researchers—not just other Europeans—to the UK for
the past 40 years. We will lose domestic talent too. Even with
the Government’s guarantee to match the funding that researchers
are unable to receive through Horizon, Science|Business found
that 13% of researchers relocated out of from the UK in 2021.
According to the Royal Society, we have lost at least one in six
of the outstanding UK-based researchers who were awarded flagship
Horizon Europe grants, so matching funding alone, as plan B seeks
to do, will not maintain our position as a global research
leader. Finally, association with Horizon, as opposed to
third-party status, gives us a seat at the table in shaping the
direction of international research.
It is against that background that we should look at plan B, the
Pioneer programme, which was announced during the recess. It is
claimed that it would match Horizon’s £14.6 billion spending and
its seven-year programme length. The prospectus is long and heavy
on jargon, but light on detail, so we do not know whether it will
match up to association with Horizon Europe. There are too many
unanswered questions.
First, on the funding split between the four pillars of Pioneer,
the largest amount—£3.8 billion—will go to Pioneer Global.
Pioneer Innovation will receive £3.5 billion, Pioneer Talent will
receive £2 billion and Pioneer Infrastructure will receive £1.7
billion. That adds up to £11 billion—I know the Prime Minister is
keen on maths—but page 4 of the document says that the UK will
invest £14.6 billion through to 2027-28. Where is the other
money?
Where is the guarantee over the duration of the programme?
Horizon offers certainty for seven years, but the prospectus for
the Pioneer proposal says in many places that funding will be
“subject to future spending reviews”.
A seven-year programme means nothing if the Government can pull
the plug on funding at any stage. It is not simply about
contributions; it is about confidence.
On the net contribution, how can the Government claim that
researchers will get more from Pioneer than from Horizon when
there is no certainty about the funding? Frankly, the
Government’s record of replacing EU funding at the same level via
domestic schemes is not great. Despite a 2019 Conservative party
manifesto commitment to match EU economic development funding,
the domestic replacement scheme, the UK shared prosperity fund,
represents a 43% cut. It is even more for us in South Yorkshire,
where the £605 million of structural funds we would have received
as a less developed region has been replaced just by pots of £10
million here and £10 million there. But this is not just about
money—it is about confidence. A lack of certainty will drive away
talent to other countries where the funding can be secured.
There are also questions about the role of the European Research
Council if we are left with Pioneer. Throughout the prospectus
that the Government published over the recess, there is much
emphasis on the importance of the ERC and the benefits it brings
to the UK. That is right, but how will collaboration with the ERC
be possible in practice if we are reduced to third party status?
For example, we will not be eligible for ERC grants.
In the global pillar, the prospectus suggests that Pioneer will
look beyond bilateral agreements to minilateral agreements, with
groups of countries on specific challenges, but it is not clear
how those partners will be chosen and what issues they will
consider. As a plan B, Pioneer does not match up to what is
needed.
Among the organisations that have commented on the prospectus,
the Institute of Physics put it well, saying that
“any alternative to Horizon must also make up for the loss of the
established networks, partnerships, and infrastructure the UK has
benefited from over many years”—
which plan B clearly fails to do. It risks leaving us at the
margins of global research, no longer at the centre. Clearly, a
UK-based programme would be better than nothing, but I hope that
the Government’s benchmark is higher.
Outside Horizon, or with third party status, the UK will have no
seat at the table to shape the direction of the world’s biggest
research programme. It will limit the attraction of the UK as a
destination for talent and investment. We will be locked out of
our leadership position in key research disciplines, because we
will not be a trusted partner to lead on specific projects.
Turning our backs on Horizon means putting us in direct
competition with countries that should be our key global
partners.
Frankly, this situation does not match up to the Government’s
ambition to be a science superpower. If they are serious about
retaining Britain’s position as a global research superpower and
about promoting and sustaining economic growth, I hope the
Minister will reassure us today that the Government are serious
in the negotiations and that they will do everything in their
power to secure association.
5.27pm
(Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon,
Mr Hosie. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield
Central () on securing this really
important debate, and on his excellent opening speech.
Horizon Europe is the EU’s key funding programme for research and
innovation. Running until 2027, it has a budget of €95.5 billion.
Among other things, it aims to address climate change and help to
achieve the United Nations sustainable development goals.
However, the future is unclear where the UK’s association with
Horizon Europe is concerned.
The Government recently stated that negotiations on this matter
have taken place. Earlier this month, the Minister for Science,
Research and Innovation spoke of a recent visit to Brussels by
the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, to
discuss research collaboration with the EU, including the UK’s
expectations around association to Horizon Europe.
I hope the Minister will be able to tell us in his response to
the debate what further progress there has been over the past few
weeks and what progress he expects in the weeks and months to
come. I hope he can also say whether he is hopeful, now there is
an agreement in place between the UK and the EU on the way in
which the Northern Ireland protocol operates, that that will move
things along where the UK’s association to Horizon Europe is
concerned. I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on
that point.
Participation of the UK in Horizon Europe is vital to our
universities. Back in July 2020, around 100 organisations signed
a statement advocating that the UK participates in Horizon
Europe. One of those organisations was Universities UK, the
collective voice of 140 universities across the UK, including the
University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University,
Liverpool Hope University and the University of Chester, Edge
Hill University and others that are near to my constituency of
Wirral West. These universities are crucial to the local economy
and to the many academics who live in my constituency who work in
them. The statement by Universities UK said:
“Horizon Europe association should be a core part of the future
relationship between the EU and the UK for research, underpinning
valuable scientific partnerships that have been built up over
many years.”
It went on:
“Clinical trials, particularly on diseases with limited patient
populations, are reliant on EU-UK collaboration, while close
research partnerships continue to accelerate life-changing
medical research. Our ability to respond to the threat of climate
change and outbreaks of new diseases like Covid-19 has also been
greatly improved by close scientific and clinical partnerships
across Europe.
Knowledge and discovery do not stop at borders, and the shared
global challenges we face require joint solutions.”
I would like the Minister to reflect on that point. I would also
like him to address the fact that his Department recently
returned £1.6 billion of funds previously allocated for Horizon
Europe association to the Treasury, despite the Government having
previously stated that research and development budgets would be
protected, and that the money allocated for association to
Horizon Europe would be spent on research and development. What
has happened, and why was that funding returned to the
Treasury?
The Government recently published plans for the Pioneer
programme, which they have said will
“protect and support the UK research and innovation sector”
if negotiations on associating with Horizon Europe break down.
Pioneer has been described as a back-up plan, and a plan B, so
why are the Government concerned that negotiations on an
association with Horizon Europe might break down? It is clear
that UK scientists and researchers, and those representing them,
are still pushing for Horizon Europe association. For instance,
Sarah Main, the executive director of the Campaign for Science
and Engineering, has said:
“Of course, it is sensible for the Government to prepare
alternatives…but let not the alternatives get in the way of the
progress on both sides towards the goal of a full and cooperative
research relationship between the UK and EU.”
Similarly, Tim Bradshaw, the chief executive of the Russell
Group, which represents the UK’s leading research universities,
has pointed out that
“it will be a challenge to replicate the full benefits of the
world’s largest collaborative research programme, with ready-made
routes for talent flow, facilities access and collaboration with
multiple countries.”
Tony McBride, the director of policy and public affairs at the
Institute of Physics, has acknowledged
“the need for a fallback position”,
but has suggested that the Government’s priority must be to
secure association to Horizon Europe, and Dr Owen Jackson, the
director of policy at Cancer Research UK, has said:
“UK-based cancer scientists are in a strong position to win
funding from Horizon Europe and the EU’s Cancer Mission…but they
will be at the margins, rather than at the centre, of these
important opportunities if we don’t get association over the
line.”
Can the Minister confirm that the Government are listening to
voices from the sector, and are continuing to engage with
stakeholders on the importance of associating with Horizon? Will
he make it clear in the strongest terms that the Government are
fully committed to making an association with Horizon Europe? Can
he also indicate when he expects the negotiations to come to
fruition?
Several hon. Members rose—
(in the Chair)
Order. I will start the wind-ups shortly after quarter to six.
There will be five minutes for the SNP, five minutes for Labour,
10 minutes for the Minister, and a short time for the mover of
the motion. If the remaining Back Benchers can take around six
minutes, everything will be fantastic. I call .
5.32pm
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Hosie; it is a pleasure to serve with you in the
Chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield
Central () on opening the debate with
such a comprehensive analysis of what is happening around Horizon
Europe.
Before the Minister makes all sound well and plausible, I want us
to appreciate the environment in which we are calling for
immediate and urgent talks to settle our future in Horizon
Europe. I welcome the new Department for Science, Innovation and
Technology, which brings focus, and I welcome the commitment on
energy. However, President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is
dwarfing the global community. His “Build Back Better” plan for
life sciences, climate mitigation and industrial investment is
ambitious, challenging and market-changing, built on
invest-to-save principles. He is investing half of what he will
see in return, posturing as a global leader and ensuring that he
is sucking in the global science community. Things are scaling
and advancing at pace.
We need to be alert to what is happening across the water, and of
course must integrate it with the focus around the bioeconomy
strategy, which, over 20 years, will bring a possible 30-fold
return. That can go back into resourcing the Government and the
science community. We can start to see the power that has been
realised in the States. That power has clearly not been realised
by this Government. This is a wake-up call for Europe. Of course,
we are talking about not just the flows of money, but the whole
scientific community and the opportunity that it presents. If it
is happening in the States, it is happening in China, too. We
need to wake up.
I was speaking to scientists this morning who said that UK
Research and Innovation and Horizon have been dwarfed into
“irrelevance”—that was the word used by those leading scientists,
including people leading in the field of biotechnology. That
brings home the scale of what we are talking about and the
importance of investment. Horizon Europe is investing £95.5
billion in this cycle, and it is really important that we
understand what that brings. It is not just the investment; it is
about one community. It is about one set of regulations from
conception, research and innovation to scaling and manufacturing.
It is about one market, and it is about how that market interacts
with the rest of the world. Of course, we are now sitting outside
that, as a result of decisions taken in 2016 and
consequently.
Behind Horizon Europe is a brand that is understood on a global
scale, builds confidence and delivers. The next phase is up to
2027, and there will no doubt be another to follow, yet we have
lurched into a short-term commitment from February to June this
year. What comes after that? Who knows? Who will make investments
when there is no security or guarantee of where that will take
us? We have heard about the Pioneer programme, which might be
laudable if we were just an island, but we are part of the global
community. This is certainly not the way that research works.
Pioneer will not deliver the scale, connectivity and research
interfaces required in today’s world of research to get the
capacity that we need.
I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the focus that is
needed. Look at the BioYorkshire project. I have had debates in
this place on it, and have engaged with the Prime Minister,
Ministers and former Prime Ministers on it, but three years down
the line, after UKRI and the Government recognised the importance
of the project, we still have not seen any money. The investment
is small compared with the return it will bring in 10 years; the
amount returned to the Treasury will be greater by a factor of
8.3, and the project will create 4,000 jobs, return £1.4 billion
of gross value added and upskill 25,000 people. It will also
bring 2.8 million tonnes of carbon reduction and 1.2 million
tonnes of landfill reduction. It is the biggest green new deal on
offer and could be world changing, but the Government have failed
to bring forward the money, despite how long we have begged for
it.
As the days slip by, others across the globe take up these
innovative technologies and advance, and that shuts down our
opportunities to be world leaders in this field. We feel
frustration; “negligent” does not begin to describe the
Government. They really need to get their act together, get
investment into the hands of scientists, universities and places
of research, and bring these projects forward.
I could talk about the benefit we have seen at the University of
York under Horizon 2020, for example through the European
training network for safe autonomous systems. I could talk about
supporting health technology through Horizon. I could talk about
wellbeing-inclusive sustainable economies, and about the research
and innovation at the cutting edge of bioarchaeology. We have
seen so many benefits at the University of York; it has punched
above its weight when it has been in receipt of funding. However,
if the Government do not start to invest, we will seriously be
left behind.
The Government need to get their act together. I echo what has
been said by colleagues from across the Chamber: the Government
need to get an agreement signed with Horizon Europe, because we
need to keep up with the European community, let alone the global
community, and time is running out.
5.39pm
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central
() on his excellent speech,
and on getting this debate, which is relevant and pertinent,
given what the Government are saying but not doing on this
subject. I want to use my few minutes to talk about Imperial
College London. Hon. Members will be familiar with Imperial; it
is consistently one of the world’s top universities and is of
great standing. It has been around for more than a century and
leads in fields of science, engineering, medicine and business.
If I can be slightly parochial, it also has the new White City
campus, which is of much more recent origin, but which is already
an innovation district. It has an industrial strategy jointly
with Hammersmith and Fulham Council. It is a major employer,
builder and investor in the area, and it is developing
world-leading research on quantum engineering, clean energy,
machine learning and clinical trials on dementia, infectious
diseases, cancer and many other matters. This is absolute cutting
edge, but like many of our leading universities, Imperial relies
on Horizon, and has done over a long period. I will explain what
that means and why the Government’s solutions are simply not
adequate to the task.
UK universities have built high-impact science and innovation
networks over more than three decades of collaboration within EU
framework programmes. Those deep-seated networks aid the flow of
ideas, talent and funding that underpins the UK’s leading science
base. Imperial was a partner on collaborative Horizon 2020
research projects worth more than €2.2 billion over the course of
the programme. That means that in addition to direct funding, it
had access to the data, infrastructure and knowledge generated
through the wider project consortia. On average across all its
collaborative Horizon 2020 projects, Imperial received access to
world-class research consortia that had funding at a scale of 27
times its own financial awards. Those projects averaged 16
partner organisations, which developed networks and shared
research expertise. On average, over eight large-scale
collaborative Horizon 2020 projects with a budget of more than
€50 million, Imperial accessed world-class research consortia
with funding that was at a scale of 280 times its own financial
award, and those projects averaged 94 co-collaborating
organisations. Hon. Members can take my word for it, but we also
heard a lengthy intervention from the right hon. Member for
Ludlow () about one of those Imperial
projects and its success.
We are not just talking about regenerating a whole district of
London, and about a top UK university; we are talking about
enabling British science and technology to compete with the US.
The quality of the national ecosystem and the way it leverages in
the wider EU ecosystem allows us to achieve scale through
partnership. About 60% of Imperial’s research papers with a US
collaborator also have a European co-author, as do 68% of
research papers with Canada and 83% with Brazil. Imperial told me
in advance of this debate:
“Outside Horizon Europe, the UK is in real danger of ceding our
hard-won position in the global R&D hierarchy and becoming
less attractive as a research partner and less attractive for
foreign direct investment. As part of Horizon Europe, the UK can
influence the future direction of billions of pounds worth of
research investment to more closely align with UK strategic
priorities.”
That is what is at risk.
Already, R&D investment in the UK is little more than half
what it is in Japan, the US or Germany. Also, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Sheffield Central indicated, the Government’s
alternative simply does not address the issues of certainty,
longevity or, in particular, leveraging in. It is impossible to
replace what is being achieved. This is a real crisis and a
fundamental moment of decision for the Government. We have to go
back into Horizon; we have to have that access. Our universities
are doing absolutely everything they can. They are world-leading.
We need a Government who have the vision and understanding to
match that.
5.44pm
(Midlothian) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Hosie. I join others in commending the hon. Member for Sheffield
Central () on securing the debate. We
have heard from the hon. Members for Wirral West (), for York Central
(), and for Hammersmith
(), who perhaps share a sense
of frustration. In many ways, this is a story of what could have
been—or what could be, if the negotiations are positive and we
can get this sorted.
Scotland has a long and proud history of scientific and
technological discovery. It punches well above its weight in
science and research, accounting for 12% of all UK research
output. No place demonstrates that more than the Midlothian
Science Zone in my constituency, which is leading the way as a
world-renowned centre of excellence in research, new technologies
and scientific studies. Midlothian is at the cutting edge of
advances in crucial research across many disciplines such as
animal health, human health, agri-tech and aquaculture.
I appreciate the Government’s efforts on the Horizon Europe
guarantee, which promised to fund all Horizon Europe calls from
UK researchers and companies post Brexit. I also appreciate the
Chancellor’s announcement of an extension to the scheme in his
spring Budget; he stated that the support provided to UK Horizon
Europe applicants would continue to be guaranteed, and that
successful applicants to Horizon Europe would receive the full
value of their funding at their UK host institution for the
lifetime of their grant. However, it is disappointing, if
slightly unsurprising, that researchers such as my constituent,
who I will refer to as Dr A, are still being disqualified due to
the UK not having associated with Horizon Europe in time, despite
all those guarantees.
My constituent was a successful applicant to the Horizon Europe
funding call, and was successful in her evaluation, but Innovate
UK—the part of the UK Research and Innovation funding agency used
to manage the scheme—does not support or match her call, despite
it falling into the listed scope of the Horizon Europe guarantee.
The UK Government have committed to covering all Horizon Europe
calls, but we must ask how they can claim to be sticking to that
pledge when they make it impossible for applicants to be treated
in the same way as non-UK Horizon Europe applicants. It is worth
noting that successive Governments have failed to place strategic
importance on science, and the continued underfunding of
science.
Although the £370 million in funding for science and innovation
announced in the Budget is welcome, it falls far short of the
£1.6 billion in funding that had been earmarked for research
collaborations with the European Union. The Government withdrew
that money for participation in Horizon from the pot. If it is
not being used for the UK’s part in Horizon, at the very least,
the entire £1.6 billion should be delivered to UK Research and
Innovation.
As we have heard, scientific progress is not achieved in
isolation, but through collaboration. Only through joined-up,
international programmes such as Horizon can Scottish and UK
science flourish and contribute to wider European scientific
progress. We should consistently stand behind UK science,
research and development. It is being held back in Scotland by a
lack of control over areas such as foreign policy and
immigration.
The budget for the Scottish Funding Council, which supports
Scotland’s world-leading universities, was taken above £2.2
billion for the first time ever in the last Scottish budget.
Scotland attracts a higher proportion of EU and international
students than any other UK nation. The latest statistics
published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that in
2020-21, Scotland led the way in attracting international
students, with 24.1% of Scottish university enrolments coming
from outwith the UK, compared with just 22.2% in England; also,
7.3% of university enrolments in Scotland came from the EU.
However, there has been a sharp drop in the number of new EU
students coming to Scotland this year. The most recent data
highlights the devastating impact that Brexit is having on new
students. The UK Government’s previous refusals to negotiate a
deal with the EU on Horizon typify how Brexit is harming
Scotland’s science sector. Since 2014, Scottish and UK
universities have lost almost £1 billion in structural EU funds
for research, which has harmed Scotland’s research and
development.
I hope that there are more positives to come from current
negotiations, but we cannot overlook what has happened in past
years. The UK Government must do so much more not only to draw
STEM workers to the UK, but to incentivise those who are already
here to remain. To do that, a firm commitment and increased
funding is absolutely vital, and that will enable us to
collaborate on a unrivalled scale while continuing to attract the
best talent, signalling ambitions to lead the world in science.
At the very least, it should not be too much to expect that the
Government could make good on their own commitments.
5.50pm
(Cardiff South and Penarth)
(Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr
Hosie. I pass on apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for
Newcastle upon Tyne Central (), who has been unavoidably delayed. I congratulate my
hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central () on securing this vital
debate. He is a great champion of universities and research
across the country, particularly in his own constituency, and I
know that my shadow ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the
Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, recently visited
Sheffield University’s gene therapy innovation and manufacturing
centre, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central
mentioned in his speech.
I also congratulate the other Members who have spoken, including
my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (), for York Central
() and for Hammersmith
(). They all made it clear
that the UK has a world-leading science base. We rank third,
behind only the US and China, in science and technology journal
articles, and we have four of the world’s top 10 universities. As
well as pushing the boundaries of humanity’s collective
understanding, science represents a priceless platform for the
UK’s future growth and prosperity, as well as to ensure our
security and respond to the global threats that have been
referred to today, from pandemics to climate change.
Under this Government, we have not seen our rich science base
converted into the high-skill, high-wage and high-productivity
economy that we all want to see. We have the lowest levels of
business investment in the G7. As a result, our great UK science
start-ups are being bought up or moving abroad. We have seen a
constant churn of Ministers—nine in five years—with multiple
changes of policy and strategy, and chronic uncertainty, making
it impossible for people to invest or plan for the future. We
have had an innovation strategy, a research and development road
map, a science plan, an Office for Science and Technology
strategy, Grand Challenges, the first National Science and
Technology Council, the new National Science and Technology
Council, and two reorganisations of UKRI, as well as other
multiple broken promises.
The reality on the ground is stark. I recently met
representatives of Universities Wales, who told me that nearly a
thousand jobs are at risk across the sector in Wales because of a
combination of the end of the Horizon funding with no deal yet on
the horizon, the failure to replace the crucial European regional
development fund and the European social fund, and the changes
around Erasmus. That means that high-quality, high-paid academic
and technical jobs are at risk for almost a thousand people in
Wales alone, which is reflected across the United Kingdom.
As hon. Members of different parties have said, innovation and
science are critical to building regional economies across the UK
that are strong and self-sufficient. However, under this
Government, that has very much been concentrated on the golden
triangle of the greater south-east, which receives more public
R&D funding than the rest of England combined, excluding
regions, towns and cities from the high-paid, high-skilled
science jobs that we need to drive growth. We on this side of the
House would champion universities and clusters of universities
across the UK as engines of regional growth, and we see a clear
path from investing in scientific research to creating jobs on
which people can raise a family. We have called for a target of
3% of GDP to be invested in R&D. I understand that Ministers
claimed recently that we have reached 2.8% with the new
accounting approach. Will the Minister confirm that and admit
that we were right to call for that crucial 3% target?
On Horizon Europe, the Conservatives made a manifesto promise
that they would associate with that €95 billion programme, which
is the world’s biggest science funding scheme. They have repeated
that promise more than 50 times, and across social media, yet we
have seen years of delay and uncertainty, whereby jobs, projects
and inward investment have been lost. There was also chaos
recently with the Northern Ireland protocol negotiations, which
have now thankfully been resolved. The Minister will undoubtedly
say that negotiations are under way, but the reality is that we
have seen scientists and researchers having to choose between the
country that they love and the funding that they need. Indeed,
there is not even a single mention of Horizon in the latest two
science plans.
We have heard a lot today about Pioneer, but it simply does not
match Horizon Europe for funding, prestige, influence or range.
The sector knows it, the Minister knows it and the Prime Minister
knows it. I note that the national academies that would be
delivering the Pioneer talent element say that Horizon Europe is
still their first choice. The British Academy says that the
association with Horizon must remain an “overriding priority”,
and the Royal Academy of Engineering says that that is its
“strong preference”.
We will also have huge administration and set-up costs with
Pioneer. How much of the £14 billion would actually be spent as
grants for our scientists and researchers? Much of it will be
spent on bureaucracy, thereby short-changing our science base.
The UK Government claim that Pioneer will provide more funding
for R&D than it would have received through Horizon, but I am
not sure how they can make that claim, when the reality is that
the UK was the second top grant receiver from Horizon 2020 and we
got more out of the programme than we put in. Almost half of
Pioneer’s total budget—£6 billion—is set outside the current
spending review period. Is that an unfunded spending commitment,
or will it be part of the Government’s seemingly abandoned
promise to invest £22 billion in R&D by 2027?
Can the Minister say what steps his Government will take to
increase public and private research and development across the
UK? I mentioned the loss of crucial funding from the European
regional development fund—£618 million—that has not been replaced
by the shared prosperity fund or other funds. Of course, the
Government have not provided detail on how British scientists
will be supported after the Horizon guarantee ends in June. Can
the Minister explain whether that guarantee will be extended, and
how the Government will prevent a draining of jobs and talent
away from our crucial science sector in the months to come?
We deserve a Government who do not politicise the funding and
livelihoods of our science base. We cannot build a science
superpower with sticking plaster policies. Labour will deliver on
Horizon association, boost R&D across the UK and catalyse the
regions that have been left out of our science investment.
5.55pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science,
Innovation and Technology ()
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central () on securing this debate on
research and development funding, and indeed Horizon Europe. It
is a hugely important and timely debate, and I thank the hon.
Gentleman for the opportunity to speak to Members today.
As we have heard today, despite our relative size, Britain
outperforms our closest competitors. We are a main challenger
nation to the US and China in so many areas, with four of the
world’s top universities and a technology sector worth more than
$1 trillion. Just eight of our university towns are home to more
billion-dollar unicorn start-ups than the whole of France and
Germany combined. However, when others, including France and
Germany, are moving further and faster to invest in science and
technology, we have to do the same.
In February, the Prime Minister announced the creation of the
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that
the UK is at the forefront of global scientific and technology
advancement and to ensure that the brightest scientists, most
brilliant innovators and most ambitious entrepreneurs can turn
their ideas into companies, products and services here in the UK
that will change lives and drive growth. We are focused on
optimising public R&D investment to support our strengths and
increase levels of private R&D to make our economy the most
innovative in the world.
We are already making swift progress. We have launched the
Government’s plan to cement the UK’s place as a science and
technology superpower by 2030, challenging every part of
Government to put the UK at the forefront of global science and
technology through 10 key actions, creating that co-ordinated
cross-Government approach. Those key actions include identifying
critical technologies; investing in R&D and talent and
skills; financing innovative science and technology companies;
creating international opportunities; providing access to
physical and digital infrastructure; and improving regulation and
standards. That delivery starts now. Although the Secretary of
State may pause in a week or so for her own delivery, the
Department’s work will not pause. We have a raft of projects
initially worth around £500 million in new and existing funding
that will help to ensure the UK has the skills, talent and
infrastructure to take a global lead in game-changing
technologies and groundbreaking science.
In line with our focus on delivering long-term economic growth,
we remain committed to increasing publicly funded and
economy-wide R&D spending. As set out in the 2023 Budget, the
Government are turning their vision for UK enterprise into a
reality by supporting growth in the sectors of the future. There
are huge opportunities to do that by capturing a share of growing
global markets in green industries, digital technologies, life
sciences, creative industries and advanced manufacturing.
The Government have recommitted to increasing public expenditure
on R&D to £20 billion per annum by 2024-25, representing a
cash increase of around one third—the largest ever increase in
public R&D spending over a spending review period. We have
provided UKRI, our national funding body, with a multi-year
settlement across all parts of its budget, which will be vital to
support our science superpower ambitions. The total UKRI
allocation is £25.1 billion for 2022-25, and will reach more than
£8.8 billion in the year 2024-25—its highest ever level.
On 25 January, we launched the Advanced Research and Invention
Agency—ARIA—a new independent research body custom built to fund
high-risk, high-reward scientific research. The Government have
committed £800 million to ARIA out to 2025-26. ARIA will help
maintain the UK’s position as a science superpower, helping to
attract top talent to the UK, grow our economy, boost prosperity
and, crucially, invest in break-through technologies with a
potential to profoundly change the world for the better.
Clearly, we are also fully committed—we have heard the request—to
science and research collaboration, including internationally and
with our European counterparts. That is why we are discussing
association to Horizon Europe with the EU, and we very much hope
that our negotiations will be successful. I know people have been
asking for guarantees. Clearly, it is not within our gift
unilaterally so we have to negotiate, but Horizon Europe is our
preference.
Association needs to be on the basis of a good deal for the UK’s
researchers, businesses and taxpayers. We welcome the EU’s recent
openness to discussions on UK association to EU programmes
following two years of delays. We have always wanted to do this,
and the hon. Member for Wirral West () talked about the
Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol. They have
helped unlock our move to have these productive conversations
now. At the partnership council on 24 March, the UK and the EU
agreed to take forward discussions on UK association in the
coming weeks. Indeed, the Secretary of State travelled to
Brussels on 4 April for an introductory meeting with the EU’s
research and innovation commissioner Mariya Gabriel to discuss
research collaboration, including the UK’s expectations around
association to Horizon Europe.
Our discussions will need to reflect the lasting impact of two
years of delay to the UK’s association, which means, as we have
heard, researchers and businesses across the UK have missed out
on over two years of a seven-year programme. In all scenarios, we
will continue to put the interests of researchers, innovators and
entrepreneurs across the UK first, so that they can take forward
groundbreaking research and drive forward innovation with their
international partners. With that in mind, if we are not able to
secure association to Horizon Europe on fair and appropriate
terms, and I highlight again that that is very much our
preference, we will implement Pioneer.
Pioneer is the Government’s bold, ambitious alternative to
Horizon Europe, should we be unable to reach that agreement with
the EU on association. On 6 April, as we have heard, the
Government published their prospectus on Pioneer. That has been
developed with input from researchers and businesses across the
UK, and it sets out the proposals that would inform the scheme.
By publishing the prospectus now, we are giving the research
community and industry a further opportunity to provide feedback
to shape these proposed plans. Our plans provide clear
reassurance that the Government are fully prepared to launch an
ambitious alternative scheme should we be unable to associate to
Horizon Europe. We look forward to engaging with and seeking
further input from researchers and businesses as we develop these
proposals over the coming weeks and months.
Pioneer would deliver four interconnected programmes covering
offers for talent, global, innovation and R&D infrastructure
to boost the UK’s R&D system. These programmes would be
supported by the Horizon Europe guarantee, and a transitions
package would ensure there is no gap in investment flowing to the
sector. Pioneer would receive at least the same amount of funding
as the UK would have paid to associate to Horizon had we
associated from 2021-27, which means the UK would invest around
£14.6 billion in Pioneer to the end of 2027-28, including the
support we are already providing to the sector, such as via the
Horizon guarantee. I will answer the maths question from the hon.
Member for Cardiff South and Penarth () because he mentioned some
of the figures. Pioneer funding includes £2 billion for talent,
£3.5 billion for innovation, £3.8 billion for global and £1.7
billion for infrastructure. Add the funding we are already
providing for the sector, including the Horizon guarantee—a
further £3.6 billion—and that adds up to the £14.6 billion.
Regardless of whether we reach an agreement with the EU on
association or we launch Pioneer—that proposed alternative—the
Government will ensure that UK researchers and businesses
continue to benefit from world-leading collaboration
opportunities with colleagues from Europe and beyond. The
Government have already committed investment for UK researchers
to engage in and benefit from global collaboration through the
international science partnerships fund. That was designed to
deepen scientific collaboration between the UK and international
R&D powers on strategically important science themes. In
December last year, £119 million for ISPF phase 1 was announced.
That allows UK researchers and innovators to collaborate with
international partners on multidisciplinary projects. It will
help the UK and its partners to deliver bigger, better science
than one country can alone.
Global collaboration under the ISPF will give researchers access
to global talent, large-scale facilities, research ecosystems and
markets to swiftly move forward ideas to greater maturity,
applicability and commercialisation. It is being delivered
through trusted and established partners, including UK Research
and Innovation, the UK national academies and selected public
research establishments, such as the Met Office, UK Atomic Energy
Authority and the National Physical Laboratory. Should we not be
able to associate to Horizon Europe, this fund would be expanded
to tackle global challenges and develop future technologies,
positioning UK researchers at the heart of global solutions.
I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow
() and the hon. Members for
Wirral West, for Cardiff South and Penarth, for Hammersmith
(), for York Central (), and for Midlothian
() for their contributions.
There is a network of universities and innovators in many of the
constituencies of hon. Members, across the UK in all nations. We
must ensure we keep that collaboration going and build on those
strengths. We are committed to being at the centre of what the
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology can deliver.
That will cement the UK’s place as a science and technology
superpower by 2030, increase publicly funded and economy-wide
R&D spending, optimise public R&D investment to support
areas of relative UK strength and increase the level of private
R&D to make our economy the most innovative in the world.
As I have set out, we are discussing association to Horizon
Europe with the EU, and we hope our negotiations will be
successful. However, if we are not able to secure association on
fair and appropriate terms, we will pioneer a long-term, bold and
ambitious programme to support research and innovation in the UK.
I can assure hon. Members that we are and we will continue to
negotiate in good faith with the EU, because international
collaboration with our closest partners is at the heart of what
we are trying to do.
6.07pm
I would like to thank hon. Members for their contributions. We
have had the opportunity to shine a spotlight on the benefits of
association with Horizon Europe, and we have done it with
unanimity on both sides and from all three Front-Bench
spokespeople. I hope the Minister will take back the message from
this debate to his colleagues that if they are serious about
being a science superpower, nothing less than association will
do.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered research and development funding
and Horizon Europe.
|
