Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what renewed assessment they have
made of the possibility of the United Kingdom participating in
the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme in 2023.
(Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper; it is not the first time that I have asked it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy () (Con)
The noble Viscount is getting ahead of himself. The Government
have been pushing the EU to implement our association to EU
programmes, including Horizon Europe, but the EU has delayed our
association, to the detriment of researchers and businesses in
both the UK and the EU. If this situation persists, we will be
ready to introduce a comprehensive alternative programme, which
will include a new long-term talent offer, a single innovation
programme uniting industry and academia, a global collaboration
programme and support for world- class infrastructure.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will surely
agree that, for decades, the UK benefited hugely from our
association with EU research programmes, but will he not
grudgingly accept that, three years after Brexit, real damage has
been done to British science by being out of it? The Royal
Society wants to know, as do I: first, what will happen to the
Horizon Europe guarantee fund when it runs out in March;
secondly, what about the £2 billion that has been set aside for
future association; and, thirdly, do the Government recognise
signs of a brain drain caused by the uncertainty? In short, while
we all want the UK-EU negotiations on the Northern Ireland
protocol to succeed, we do not want plan B; we want plan A, as
promised. When will the Government deliver it?
(Con)
The noble Viscount needs to take that message to the EU. The
Government stand ready to implement the agreement that we freely
entered into; it is the EU that is refusing to do so. I agree
with the noble Viscount that Horizon Europe has been very
valuable. That is why we entered into an agreement—the TCA—to
continue our association, but the EU refuses to progress it.
(CB)
My Lords, first, does the Minister recognise that, when we were
members of Horizon, we took out more money than we put in because
of the excellence of our proposals? Does the Government’s plan
B—if we do not associate with Horizon—include the extra money
that we got from the European Union from other EU countries?
Secondly, does the Minister agree that, when we were members of
Horizon, we gained membership from our leadership role in
designing research programmes and shaping the future of Horizon?
What is the Government’s estimate of the loss to UK science of
the lack of that leadership role?
(Con)
My Lords, the Government need no convincing about the benefits of
association with Horizon Europe. We benefited from it. The UK has
eight universities in the top 50 globally; the EU has only six.
It is a multifaceted programme; exchanges benefit both sides. We
were of the view that association would be a good idea; that is
why we entered into the agreement. We still hope that the EU will
have second thoughts.
(Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has apologised for
asking the same question twice. I will do the same thing and ask
why we cannot be associate members of Horizon, like Israel and
Tunisia.
(Con)
I think my noble friend has asked that question three times. He
gets the same answer every time but he is welcome to ask it
again. The point that he makes is very valid. There are 15
countries in addition to the EU that have associated to Horizon,
including Israel, Kosovo, Turkey and Tunisia, but, for reasons
known only to itself, the EU refuses to continue the agreement.
(LD)
My Lords, the Government’s plan B will not help the situation, as
the Science and Technology Committee found in its report on the
Government’s ambition to be a scientific superpower. Our work and
scientific visas and upfront health costs are up to six times as
high as those of other leading scientific nations. Will the
Government implement our recommendation to reduce visa fees in
line with those of our competitors? If not, we will carry on
losing scientists.
(Con)
We remain very proud of our scientific efforts and researchers
continue to come from all over the world to study in the UK and
to continue their research here. We want that to continue but I
will certainly pass on the noble Baroness’s comments to the Home
Office.
(Lab)
My Lords, something that is not mentioned enough in this argument
is the collaboration between people individually within a large
laboratory. In my group there were speakers of 15 European
languages. We made long-term relationships with people that we
could carry on while we were still in the EU. That has now been
lost. How can the Government replace that?
(Con)
If it proves not possible to associate with Horizon, as I
said—although we continue our efforts to try to persuade the EU
otherwise and to fulfil the agreement that it entered into—we
will have to put in place alternative arrangements involving
scientists from EU countries as well as from across the world. I
agree with the noble Lord, and I know he has tremendous
experience in this, that research collaboration across countries
and across continents is always useful.
(Con)
My Lords, are we not in this position because we threatened to
abrogate an international treaty into which we had willingly
entered? I very much want to see the protocol negotiations
succeed. Where do they stand at the moment?
(Con)
I cannot comment on the protocol negotiations in detail. As far
as I am aware, they are going well. I realise that my noble
friend wants to link the two issues, but they are entirely
separate. They are entirely separate agreements. Justifying the
EU’s unreasonable position on this helps no one.
(CB)
My Lords, time is running out. Every university and research
organisation in the country will provide examples of projects
that are now in limbo. They are not being included in new EU
projects because they are seen as a risk. Last week the Science
Minister, , announced that if the UK
does not associate to Horizon Europe, the Government will be
ready with a “comprehensive alternative” to ensure strong
international collaboration opportunities—the so-called plan
B—both transitional and in the longer term. How soon will more
details, especially for the longer term, be announced? Does the
Minister agree that there is an urgency to ending the uncertainty
that is so damaging to our universities and research
organisations?
(Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. There is a limit to how long this
period of limbo can go on. We have provided guarantees to
researchers, and we are funding them in the meantime. The time is
approaching when we will need to make a final decision on this.
(Lab)
My Lords, since the Minister has considerable experience of the
European Union and its institutions, why does he think that the
European Union is behaving in this remarkably unkind way? Is
there some explanation or is it just a question of the EU using
this issue to try to succeed in some other way in the
negotiations?
(Con)
I think the Commission has been very clear in intimating that the
issue is linked to the Northern Ireland protocol, but, as I have
said, this is a separate issue. They are separate legal
agreements, and we stand ready to continue the discussions about
association, which is part of an agreement we already have with
the EU.
(Lab)
My Lords, I think we would all, on our side, feel more convinced
if it was not always the case that the Government think it is
someone else’s fault. Surely this is the time to engage in more
meaningful negotiations with our former EU partners because the
time by which a decision has to be made on this is fast
approaching. As I understand it, we need to agree a guarantee
scheme by the end of March. That being the case, can the Minister
confirm whether that is the cut-off date, and that the Government
will bring forward a plan B to ensure that we have the right
levels of international co-operation in research that this
country urgently needs so that our businesses thrive in the
future?
(Con)
I always stand ready to receive advice from the noble Lord about
how we can meaningfully enter into negotiations with someone who
does not want to meaningfully enter into negotiations with us.
Obviously, the Labour Opposition know better than we do on this.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not think that the Government
might be more successful in delivering what everyone wants if the
Opposition do not keep taking the side of the EU, which is
responsible for this?
(Con)
My noble friend gets the Opposition riled more than I do
sometimes. Criticism of the EU is almost blasphemy in some parts
of this House, but the reality is this is the fault of the EU. We
stand ready to continue the negotiations and to associate as soon
as the EU is prepared to talk to us about it.
(CB)
My Lords, not only are we not a member of Horizon Europe but we
are not part of Euratom. I believe that has led to supply
problems of radioisotopes imported for both treatment and
measurements in medicine. What are the Government doing about
that?
(Con)
Indeed. The noble Lord is correct. We are working to overcome
those difficulties as quickly as we can.
(Lab Co-op)
This is one of the many disasters of Brexit. What are the
benefits? Could the Minister tell us what the benefits are?
(Con)
I do not know how long the noble Lord has got, but there are huge
amounts of benefits. I could talk about all the trade agreements
we have entered into or the newfound regulatory freedom we have—
Noble Lords
Oh!
(Con)
If the House will listen, I am prepared to spend as much time as
needed on this. From financial services regulation to gene
editing and gene modifications, animal rights legislation and
environmental legislation—all of this is now possible, and it was
not when we were members of the European Union. In this case, we
have entered into an agreement with the EU. All we want it to do
is implement it.
