Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made
about the United Kingdom’s participation in the Horizon Europe
research programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
My Lords, the Government remain ready to associate to Horizon
Europe. We have entered into formal consultations with the EU,
aiming to finalise the UK’s association. If the UK is unable to
associate soon, we will be ready to introduce a comprehensive
alternative programme that delivers many of the benefits of
Horizon through international collaboration, end-to-end
innovation, and a strong and attractive offer to encourage
talented people to build their careers here in the UK.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but I have asked
this several times and there has been no progress whatever. We
have not even had a Minister of Science during the crucial period
of this summer. Does the Minister not realise that the
uncertainty about this issue is running the very real risk of a
brain drain? Surely the Minister wants to keep the best and the
brightest in this country. Do the Government really want to
sacrifice British science on the altar of the Northern Ireland
protocol? Moreover, will the Minister accept that the Royal
Society, major learned societies, Cancer Research UK and even
this House’s own Science and Technology Committee make the point
that a plan B is not the answer?
It is not the money but the irreparable damage to the
collaboration between scientists around Europe and wider afield
that is at risk. If the Government feel that there is a strong
case for their position, perhaps the new Leader of the House
could arrange a debate in government time to discuss this
extremely important issue. We cannot call ourselves a science
superpower unless we find a way to join Horizon Europe. What are
the new Government going to do about this?
(Con)
The noble Viscount is attacking the wrong target. We remain ready
to associate to Horizon Europe at the earliest possible
opportunity, in line with our agreement with the EU on the TCA.
It is the EU that is preventing this agreement, which is why we
have launched the dispute procedure. The noble Viscount is
linking two entirely separate issues: the Northern Ireland
protocol is a separate issue in a separate agreement. This is the
EU’s fault; it is trying to hold science hostage under the banner
of another issue. We remain ready to associate, so, however many
times the noble Viscount asks me the question, he will get the
same answer.
(LD)
My Lords, the creation of ARIA was an admission of the
bureaucratic nature of the current UKRI research funding system.
The Government must adopt plan B, which would be regrettable, and
introduce a new research funding stream for international
research co-operation. Will they commit to streamlining UKRI
procedures to make them as flexible and generous regarding direct
costs and innovation, and as start-up friendly, as current
European funding? Surely it cannot be the Government’s intention
to increase red tape if we are unable to remain in Horizon
Europe.
(Con)
I very much agree with the noble Lord; it is very much not our
intention to increase red tape. We are not ready to give up on
Horizon yet, but it is obviously regrettable that the EU does not
want to finalise our association and abide by the agreements that
it entered into. We have launched the dispute procedure mechanism
as a last try to persuade it of the benefits of this
co-operation. We have excellent co-operation in other areas, such
as energy, where we are helping the EU out in its hour of need.
So we hope that it will see sense and abide by the agreement that
it entered into, but, as the noble Lord said, we have a plan B if
that proves not to be the case.
The (CB)
My Lords, the press release of 16 August announcing formal
consultations with the EU uses much stronger words than the
Minister has. It says:
“UK membership of Horizon Europe would be a win-win for both the
UK and EU.”
Will this Government continue to support the words of the then
Foreign Secretary, ? Will they hold their nerve to achieve that goal,
whatever temporary blockage there may be?
(Con)
I stand completely by those words: it would be a win-win, and we
want to do it. It would be to the benefit of the EU and the UK
scientific community, and it is regrettable that the EU is
refusing to finalise the agreement that it entered into.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend tell us why we cannot be associate
members of the Horizon project, like Israel and Tunisia? Israel
is not a member of the EU, and Tunisia is not even a member of
the Eurovision Song Contest.
(Con)
My noble friend makes a good point, as he often does. I am not
sure that the Eurovision Song Contest is a sufficient precursor
to Horizon Europe, but, to be serious, his point is very valid:
other non-EU countries are associate members. We want to join;
that was the agreement that we entered into, and I hope that the
EU will see sense and abide by the agreement that it signed.
(Lab)
My Lords, surely the Government’s default programme is a second
best. The Minister has said that it will deliver “many of the
benefits” of the current programme. Where are the gaps, and what
will not be delivered?
(Con)
I am not sure that it is second best; it is an alternative. We
have many scientific co-operation programmes with many other
parts of the world; the EU is not the be-all and end-all of
scientific co-operation. However, we think that there is a lot of
value in Horizon Europe, which is why we agreed that we should
join up. Of course, we are prepared to pay all the associated
costs. That was the agreement that we entered into and we want to
try to join, but we have a plan B if that proves impossible.
(CB)
My Lords, for a change, I start by congratulating the Government
for appointing one of the best candidates as CEO of ARIA—well
done. One key issue of the Horizon Europe programme—apart from us
becoming a full member, which should be our aim—is the
collaborations we develop with other scientists worldwide. If we
do not become part of Horizon Europe, there is no strategy in the
plan B to increase collaboration internationally for our
scientists.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind words about the CEO of ARIA
and completely associate myself with them. He makes an important
point: we have many collaborations with other scientists across
the world. We think that this is very valuable and we want to
build on it, but there are many scientific institutions in the EU
with which we would also like to co-operate through association
to Horizon. Of course, we will look at alternatives and will
certainly work with alternatives in other parts of the world.
(LD)
My Lords, subjects such as maths are crucial in ensuring that the
UK achieves the Government’s ambition of becoming a science and
technology superpower. The Minister has outlined a UK programme
but that will not have the power of Horizon in collaborating
internationally. How can we ensure that the UK remains attractive
as a place for STEM experts to move to and work in, if our
reputation and scientific capability suffer due to a lack of
association with Horizon?
(Con)
The main attraction of the UK in terms of collaboration with
other parts of the world is our world-leading scientific
community—which is why it happens now. We have a number of the
best universities and researchers in the world. We are very proud
that there are many people of other nationalities who want to
come to the UK to continue their research programmes, and we have
a considerable investment programme to enable that to happen. We
want all that to continue and we will build on that, but we also
want to work with our European colleagues, which is why we want
to associate to Horizon Europe.
(Con)
My Lords, we have a new Prime Minister and her words, when she
was Foreign Secretary, have been quoted and my noble friend the
Minister has endorsed them. We want to have a new beginning; we
wish the new Prime Minister every possible success, for all our
sakes. Would it not be a good idea if she were to write to the
President of the European Commission reiterating what she said as
Foreign Secretary and expressing the hope that we can build new
relations with our former partners in the EU?
(Con)
I am sure that the Prime Minister will be having many
conversations with EU leaders and the European Commission. I am
not sure that another letter would make a tremendous difference
to the EU’s position on this; in my view, it is being incredibly
unreasonable. We will continue to work with the EU. We have
co-operation in a number of areas, so it is a win-win situation
in which both sides benefit, and we want it to continue.
(Lab)
My Lords, innovation thrives on collaboration, as we have heard.
Delaying resolving the relationship shows that the UK is not
stepping up to face the challenges of the future. We must accept
our responsibility in this relationship. We have heard that
organisations such as the UK Dementia Research Institute are on
course to become world leaders in the field, but they need the
collaboration of the brightest and the best of Europe. What
assessment has the Minister made of the impact that the
uncertainty around the UK’s association with Horizon Europe is
having on the UK’s research field?
(Con)
There are some negative impacts: the current uncertainty is
damaging for scientific co-operation. There are many researchers
who want to get on with the job, and we have put in place
transitional arrangements to help them in the meantime. We want
all that co-operation to continue. The noble Baroness cites some
good examples, and this is exactly why we want to associate to
Horizon Europe. We call on the EU to do that and to finalise the
agreements that it freely entered into and signed. I am sure that
the House is united in wanting that to continue.
