Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the
United Kingdom to join the Horizon Europe scientific research
programme.
(Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper—and, as it is the fourth time I have asked it, I
am hoping for a more encouraging reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Science, Innovation and Technology () (Con)
I hope to oblige the noble Viscount. The Government are moving
forward in discussions with the EU on the UK’s involvement in
Horizon Europe. We hope that negotiations will be successful, and
that is our preference. But participation must be on the basis of
a good deal for UK researchers, businesses and taxpayers,
reflecting the lasting impact of two years of EU delays. If we
are unable to secure association on fair and appropriate terms,
we will implement Pioneer, our bold and ambitious
alternative.
(Lab)
My Lords, that is a less encouraging reply than I had hoped for.
The scientific community, notwithstanding any intransigence by
the EU, feels that the tragedy of Brexit has been the damage done
to British science. Does the Minister not accept that there are
many aspects of Horizon Europe that are of key importance to the
UK, and that we have benefited from it in the past? I had a
letter the other day from Cancer Research UK, pointing out that
Horizon Europe offers
“unparalleled opportunities for the promotion of cancer research
in the UK and Europe”.
Is this not sufficient to drive the Government to join, rather
than to continue talking about the possibility of a plan B? We
want plan A, and I wish that the Government would bring it
about.
(Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for his question, and let me take the
opportunity to commend the work of Cancer Research UK. The
Government’s preference is to associate to Horizon, for the
reasons he very ably sets out. However, it must be on fair and
appropriate terms that reflect not just the past damage done by
our missing two years, during which we were not associated with
Horizon Europe, but ongoing and future uncertainties that not
being associated have inevitably created for us. We have done the
responsible thing by putting in place a suitable alternative, but
I stress that it is not our preferred outcome of these very
welcome talks with the EU.
(Lab)
Following on from the question from my noble friend Lord
Stansgate, the Government must explain exactly where they are
here. We were led to believe that after the Windsor Agreement,
the UK’s transition to the Horizon research programme was to be
straightforward. What has made the Government go through this
rethink? How much has the country lost in net worth in investment
in research and development by doing the hokey-cokey with the
Horizon programme, given that we were massive net beneficiaries
under the old EU scheme? We need clarity. We were promised this,
and I do not understand why the Government are messing around
with research and development in this country. We were promised
that we would get better results by coming out of Europe, but we
are not. We are going backwards.
(Con)
I stress again that our preference is to go back into the Horizon
programme. We are in negotiations with the EU to achieve that. We
have understood our own requirements for doing that and are
seeking them. The noble Lord would not expect me to comment on an
ongoing negotiation, but our hope is that we can arrive at a deal
which is fair and appropriate for UK taxpayers, businesses and,
of course, universities. As to the results over the last brief
period of negotiation since the signing of the Windsor Framework,
I cannot put a figure on exactly how much research has not been
conducted over the two months of the ongoing negotiations.
(Con)
Can my noble friend reassure us that the Government understand
that there is a world beyond white Europe? At least 15 other
countries have signed up to the Horizon programme. It is not just
research in Europe, but research in the world—India, the United
States and elsewhere. We should look well beyond white Europe and
accept not just any deal on Horizon, but one that benefits
British scientists too.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question. Regardless of which
route we go down, multilateral global collaboration across the
scientific and research community is crucial and highly valued by
all participants. If we take the Horizon route, then, as my noble
friend says, there are 15 countries outside the EU 27 that are
associated with Horizon. If we go down the Pioneer route, which
is not our preference, that will emphasise global collaboration,
whether with the EU 27 or beyond. Additionally, we recently
launched the International Science Partnerships Fund to support
UK researchers and innovators to work with international partners
on some of the most pressing themes of our time.
The (CB)
My Lords, the Windsor Framework agreement came forward on 27
February, some two and half months ago, and there is mutual harm
to both the UK and the EU—the damage is the same on either side,
to both our science spaces. A discussion about money should
surely not take two and a half months. Can the Minister give us
some reassurance that this is being treated as a matter of
extreme urgency? There is damage to both sides and active
discussions are going on to try to reach the middle ground.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the question—I am absolutely able to
provide that assurance. It is being treated as a matter of great
urgency and as I said, our preference is to reassociate to the
Horizon programme on terms that are fair and appropriate to us. I
cannot comment on the specific terms of the negotiation or our
specific negotiating purpose and outcomes, but it is being
treated very seriously and is in hand.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, do His Majesty’s Government understand that rejoining
Horizon is not about just the financial aspects? The Minister has
talked several times about the benefits and cost to the taxpayer.
This is about international networks, which are invaluable and
without price. I refer to my declaration of interests.
(Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The UK is on record
as seeking to become a science and technology superpower by 2030.
Our preferred outcome, Horizon, is absolutely a key component of
that. If we are obliged to go down the Pioneer route because we
are unable to establish a fair and appropriate agreement with
Horizon, that will be a key component as well. As she said, this
goes beyond simple financial considerations.
(Con)
My Lords, some of us in this Chamber were still in the European
Parliament for the three years following the referendum. Many of
us noted the European Union’s unfortunate intransigence on not
only Horizon but other matters. This was not necessary, because
it was not cut and dried that the UK would not be involved with
the Horizon programme in the future. Does my noble friend agree
that there is no justification for this procrastination? It is up
to the EU side to get cracking and sort out this extremely
important matter.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. When the TCA was agreed
in 2020, our association to Horizon was agreed as part of that.
That no longer happened, but it remains the UK’s wish to rejoin
Horizon. With respect to the attitudes on both sides, I welcome
the EU’s current openness to engage constructively in these
negotiations.
of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as Sir Paul Nurse has
pointed out, science and the arts depend on the exchange of
ideas, and that one of the most vital things is social and
intellectual intercourse with other countries? At the moment,
musicians and scientists are finding it terribly hard to come
here, and we are finding it hard to go there. Thus, a vital
source of inspiration is being lost.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I cannot comment
specifically today on musicians and cultural exchange. Whether we
go down the Horizon route or the less preferred Pioneer route, we
will seek global collaboration with the EU 27 and beyond on all
research and development matters.
