My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, I am returning to the subject of my first ever Parliamentary Question.
We welcome the initial proposals for the EU FP 10. We identify strong alignment between the proposals and our own focus on using research and innovation to drive economic growth. We are particularly looking at how the proposals align with the principles of excellence, openness and good value for money. I was pleased recently to have been welcomed by the informal meeting of EU Research and Innovation Ministers in July, when these proposals on the future of European research and innovation were discussed.
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I am pleased to see things are going in the right direction, first, because scientific excellence and value for money remain at the heart of the Horizon Europe programme and, secondly, because academic participation rates have risen so much since we rejoined. What is the position for industry? Can my noble friend tell the House anything about the discussion he referred to with counterparts on the future of FP 10 and its ambitious budget? Is it the case that the United Kingdom will no longer be excluded totally from the areas of quantum and space? Finally, would he agree that, with China in the ascendent and the United States damaging itself scientifically, it is all the more vital for our future prosperity that the UK co-operates with European countries in science?
I am very happy to answer my noble friend’s four questions. In terms of industry, we do not have as good an uptake yet. Academia has increased the uptake of EU grants very successfully and in Pillar 1, which is largely the academic pillar, in 2024, over 13% of the money came back. In the European Research Council awards, 56 were won, which was more than any other country in Europe. We are fully back there, but not so in industry where it is still slow. I think it is really important that we get the message out that this money is there for industry to apply for. It lost a lot of confidence when we left the programme, and we need to get the confidence back because of the reasons stated—we need to be fully part of the system. We are now able to do much more in both space and quantum that we were initially excluded from.
My Lords, there have been a number of calls from research and university representatives for the programme to take a balanced approach to research security but also to reduce bureaucracy. Can the Minister please say how he will evaluate and negotiate on FP 10’s provisions for ethical research but also on derisking investments so that we can ensure that they align with UK priorities but do not increase additional barriers or financial strains?
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Obviously, the FP 10 negotiations have not really started yet; it is just a discussion of what this might be. We are going to look very carefully at the principles of openness, excellence and value for money. We will also look at accessibility: we want to be a part of all the programme, not excluded from areas to do with military and defence. We are now included in some of those; we would like to be fully included as we increase the relationship. We are very keen to make sure, as we look at all of this, that we have transparency on the finances and value for money.
My Lords, can I ask the Minister one broad question? Would the Government, in assessing FP 10, take into consideration the success in research that British universities have had since we joined, even recently, the Horizon programme? For example, Imperial College has a direct grant of about £180 million and broader involvement leading up to, over several years, several billion pounds. The draft programme is much aligned to our own strategy. Therefore, I hope the Government will seriously take into account the success we have had and may continue to have if we join the FP 10.
The noble Lord is right. Our ability to get money through this scheme is a great success story. We are back to nearly full strength in terms of the academic side of that. Just to give some figures, in the past scheme, the University of Cambridge had £70 million and the University of Oxford £67 million. We have a large number of grants through this scheme. It is a very important part of the system, and we need to look at this in conjunction with UKRI funding to look at the totality of how we think about spread across all disciplines. I think this is a very important part of our funding system and, provided it is open, excellent and value for money, we will negotiate to try and be part of FP 10.
My Lords, can I press the Minister on timelines? He will be aware that universities are advocating for early clarity as regards the Government’s timeline for declaring their intent to associate with FP 10. Will this declaration be made early enough to influence the programme’s final design and ensure UK participation from day one? Given that multiple departments are involved, can the Minister clarify which Minister has overall responsibility and how interdepartmental co-ordination is being managed?
We have got the money for the first two years of the programme in the spending review so, assuming that we associate, the money is there for those first two years, which covers the period of the spending review. The timelines for FP10 are in the hands of the EU, which has not yet defined what the programme is. As I have already said, I was invited to a meeting in July, so we are engaged with the process. I will continue to be engaged with it and work across other departments to make sure we represent every department. But I cannot give any more timelines, because the EU has not given its timelines yet.
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s comments about Horizon and the greater involvement in space. Can he confirm what progress has been made on the UK rejoining EGNOS, which basically is the European navigation system for flying small planes in very bad conditions? We were a member and then, of course, we were kicked out because of Brexit.
My Lords, I think we would all agree that the UK has most of the leading universities and institutions in Europe. The result, as the Minister said, is that historically we punched well above our weight in this area. We contributed only 12% of the funds and received 14% to 15% of the funds back; now, in the latest round, we are still contributing 12% and receiving only around 10% to 11%, so we are now punching well below our weight. What can we do to address this now and in future rounds to make sure that our universities are not losing out?
As I have said, we are actually above 13% for Pillar 1 in the university sector and we are increasing again. We took a big hit when we left—a very big hit—and it is taking a while to come back. We are now on track and doing better in increasing our share than any other nation in Europe. The biggest area on which to concentrate is the industry side. Industry took a big hit because of loss of confidence when we removed from the system, and that is going to take a little longer to come back.