Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
reports that the European Research Council has written to 150
researchers based in the United Kingdom to say that they must
move to institutions in the European Union within the next two
months, or else give up their grants.
(Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper, and update the House on my interests in the
register, as I was recently elected president of the
Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which, as the House may
know, is Parliament’s oldest all-party group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, the UK government guarantee means that eligible
successful ERC applicants will receive the full value of their
funding at a UK host institution and need not leave the UK.
Therefore, this communication from the ERC does not accurately
reflect the options available to UK applicants. The UK remains
committed to association, but the EU is not honouring commitments
made when the TCA was agreed. If the EU continues to delay, we
will introduce a bold alternative package.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but it is still
disappointing. I shall put it in context for the House: €625
million-worth of grants were announced this week, with 61 grants
to people based in Germany and the second highest number, 45, to
people based in the UK. It is these people who have been told
that they will lose their money if the Horizon Europe agreement
is not reached by the deadline, which the European Research
Council today told me is 19 September this year. Does the
Minister accept that time is running out for an agreement to be
reached between the EU and the UK on Horizon Europe? Does he
accept that the problem is the Northern Ireland protocol and
that, to some extent, science is being held hostage by the
failure to agree the protocol arrangements between the UK and the
EU? Is this a situation that we should be proud of when all of us
in this Chamber want the UK to be a science superpower? Finally,
the last time I raised this question, the Minister said that the
money was safeguarded. Can he assure the House that the amount
allocated by the Treasury will be spent on science and, if so, on
what, where and by what mechanism?
(Con)
I partly agree with the noble Lord. I agree that time is running
out but not that the Northern Ireland protocol is the problem.
The EU entered into an agreement which it is now refusing to
implement; that is the long and short of the problem. As soon as
some Members stop making excuses for the EU’s bad behaviour, we
might succeed. We stand ready to associate with the Horizon
programme as soon as the EU is prepared to sit down and implement
the agreement that it signed.
(LD)
My Lords, everyone agrees that UK participation in Horizon is of
benefit to researchers in the UK, the EU and beyond, but also of
mutual benefit is the UK’s commitment to stick to legal
engagements that it has made. I am afraid that there is some pot
and kettle going on from the Minister. Why are this Government
again threatening to breach the Northern Ireland protocol and to
take powers—we expect this in the Queen’s Speech—and undermine
the trust that is essential to making other co-operation work?
This is linked to the Northern Ireland protocol, but it is the
Government’s failure to honour their commitments which is the
problem.
(Con)
I am sorry that the noble Baroness refuses to accept where the
blame lies in this circumstance. The UK has not breached any
agreements that we signed with the European Union. We have abided
by all of them. The EU signed an agreement to say that we would
associate with the Horizon programme but is refusing to implement
that agreement. The Liberal Democrats and others should stop
thinking that everything which the EU does is perfect and believe
that there are some cases where it gets things wrong.
The (CB)
My Lords, despite what the Minister has just said, the problem is
the Northern Ireland protocol, as the last two questioners have
said. The EU Research Commissioner confirmed last September that
this is why we are being shut out of Horizon Europe while other
non-EU countries are being welcomed on board with open arms.
(Con)
The Northern Ireland protocol is a completely separate agreement.
It is different from the agreement that the EU signed. I am
sorry, but we should not accept the EU’s excuses on this. The EU
signed an agreement, and it should abide by it. I wish that noble
Lords would sometimes be on the UK’s side rather than wanting to
see fault in everything that we do. We should allocate the blame
where it belongs.
(Lab)
We should all live by the agreements that we sign. Should the
European research grants be withdrawn from the UK-based
researchers, have the Government sought or received any
assurances that these grants will be restored once associate
membership of the Horizon Europe programme is re-achieved?
(Con)
The UK has provided a guarantee to all those researchers. If the
ERC continues to say that they will not be eligible for grants,
as long as the EU itself refuses to agree participation in the
Horizon programme, then the Government have said that we will
guarantee all those researchers’ grants.
(Con)
My Lords, of the world’s top 40 universities, seven or
eight—depending on which ranking we use—are in the United
Kingdom. None is in the European Union. Does the Minister really
think that the success of our higher education sector is
dependent on participation in the Horizon programme?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. We think on balance that
it is worth associating with the Horizon programme, which is why
we agreed to participate, paying our full amount into it of
course for that participation. However, if the EU refuses to
stand by the agreements that it signed, we will put alternative
arrangements in place, and all the sums that would have been
allocated to researchers under the Horizon programme will instead
be funded directly by the UK.
(Lab)
My Lords, we should soon be admitted to the Horizon Europe
programme for funding research and innovation if the Government
were to undertake not to invoke Article 16. However, what
progress can the Government report in their endeavour to seek
collaborative research arrangements with other countries, in
particular with the Swiss, who have also not been readmitted to
Horizon?
(Con)
The noble Viscount makes a very good point and, of course,
alludes to the previous answer that I gave to my noble friend
Lord Hannan. There are many good universities around the world,
not just necessarily in the EU. We have a number of different,
collaborative research programmes with other parts of the world.
Ironically, under the Horizon programme, it is of course possible
for third countries to associate in collaborative research
programmes, provided they pay their fair share of the bills. The
EU is not just treating us unfairly in terms of the agreement it
signed, but is actually treating us differently from other
countries in the world.
(Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that top-quality academic
research is inherently an internationally co-operative effort?
Oh, my phone is ringing. Pending the completion of the Horizon
project, the UK’s universities—despite what his noble friend Lord
Hannan might suggest—are inherently at a disadvantage, because of
the complexity and the fact that they will no longer, in
practice, be able to be the co-ordinator of the project, with the
loss of the academic prestige and indeed funding that it
involves.
(Con)
Perhaps we should all have musical accompaniments to our answers
and questions; I am sure they would be much improved. The noble
Lord makes an important point: the leadership of these programmes
is important and international collaboration is important in
science, but we should not make the mistake of thinking that the
EU is the repository of all knowledge and wisdom on scientific
matters. There are many other parts of the world. Yes, of course
we want to co-operate with EU institutions, but we also want to
co-operate with others across the world.
(LD)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House welcomes what the noble Lord
has said about the importance to the UK Government of observing
international treaties and agreements that we have signed. Does
he intend to imply clearly, and would he like to clarify, that
this means there is absolutely no question that the Government
will go back on the Northern Ireland protocol?
(Con)
The Northern Ireland protocol is built into the treaty. The
exercising of the Northern Ireland protocol, if we chose to do
so, would be in compliance with the treaty obligations. It is a
section of that treaty. I merely make the point that the UK has
not broken any of its obligations that it signed with the EU. It
is the EU that is in default, and it is about time the Liberal
Democrats recognised that.
The (CB)
My Lords, the Horizon programme is actually very complex. It
would not be completely easy for us to begin the programme, say,
18 months late, without some element of further negotiation. Are
the Government already dealing with that on a “what if” basis or
will be a further delay, assuming that the protocol is finally
sorted out?
(Con)
As I said, we stand ready to commence negotiations for our
association as soon as the EU is prepared to do so. In the
meantime, of course, as the House would expect, we are putting in
place alternative arrangements if that proves not to be
possible.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making good the shortfall
if we are not remaining part of the Horizon programme. But does
he accept that universities have benefited from match funding
from other universities in other member states and that that is
going to be lost? Do the Government intend to replace that with
other establishments from outside the European Union?
(Con)
I am afraid I do not understand the point my noble friend is
making; there is no shortfall as such. The UK pays its fair share
for our participation in Horizon and has always done so, and a
similar amount of money will be made available in the future if
association proves impossible.
