Written evidence submitted by Universities UK (LEA0275)

About us

Universities UK is the representative organisation for the UK’s universities. Founded in 1918, its mission is to be the voice for universities in the UK, providing high quality leadership and support to its members to promote a successful and diverse higher education sector. With 135 members and offices in London, Cardiff (Universities Wales) and Edinburgh (Universities Scotland), it promotes the strength and success of UK universities nationally and internationally.

 

Summary of positions and asks

 

 

 

Immediate term

 

Priorities in relation to the EU-UK relationship

 

The UK’s status as a leading nation for science and research and the extensive experience of collaboration in the academic community provides a unique opportunity for constructive dialogue with the EU. In this context:

 

 

Longer-term priorities for an internationalised higher education sector

 

 

COLLABORATION:

 

  1. International collaboration across borders strengthens the excellence, profile and impact of UK research. The UK has more articles per pound and per researcher than our major competitors – with 0.9% of the world’s population, the UK’s research base produces 15.9% of the world’s most highly-cited articles. This is in large part due to the UK’s high levels of international collaboration. Almost 50% of UK academic papers are written with an international partner, and international co-authorship is associated with 61% more impact than institutional co-authorship based on field-weighted citation impact (FWCI), and 41% more impact than national co-authorship.

 

  1. Cooperation with European countries is a fundamental pillar of the UK’s international engagement. This is facilitated and incentivised by the funding and the networks offered by the EU: the EU guarantees freedom of movement for researchers and support staff, a harmonised regulatory environment and offers through the Framework Programme a single framework for collaboration.

 

  1. Almost half (47%) of UK internationally co-authored publications between 2008 and 2012 were with EU and EEA research partners, and the average Field Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) for UK collaborations with the EU and EEA was very high at 2.97, compared to an average FWCI of 1.45 for collaborations within the UK and 2.00 for UK international collaborations. In addition, seven of the UK’s top ten, and 13 of our top 20, ‘most collaborated with’ nations are other EU member states. The field weighted citation impact of collaborative research between the UK and European partners is significant: Germany – 2.75; France – 2.88; Italy – 2.77, and Netherlands – 3.16.

 

Immediate action in relation to Horizon 2020 participation

 

  1. In the immediate term, following the UK’s exit from the EU, it is essential that the UK’s participation in and access to EU programmes is not hampered by the uncertainty created by the UK’s decision to leave the EU. We welcome as a positive first step the Government’s commitment to underwrite UK researchers’ participation in Horizon 2020 for projects bid directly to the European Commission while we are still a member of the EU, (even when specific projects continue beyond the UK’s departure from the EU).
     
  2. However, in order for the statement to have the desired effect of addressing uncertainty among the research community, and maintaining the perceived attractiveness of the UK as a research partner, the Government should:

 

Long-term priorities in relation to EU collaboration

 

  1. Longer term, and regardless of the constitutional settlement, the UK must continue to invest in and grow its collaborative relationships with European partners. In order to most effectively ensure this, the UK Government should:
     

 

 

 

 

Implications for Joint Research Infrastructures

 

  1. The sharing and developing of joint Research Infrastructures (RIs) is a core element of European research collaboration. It will be paramount to ensure that leaving the EU will not impede access to this infrastructure for researchers based in the UK, and as a result make the UK a less attractive place in which to undertake research.

 

  1. The expense of establishing research infrastructure means that it is often unfeasible for individual states acting on their own to do so. International co-ordination in this area is particularly helpful in streamlining and combining resources, and providing a forum for necessary negotiation. Research infrastructure can take the form of physical infrastructures as well as constructing and granting access to large datasets. Large datasets in the social science fields in particular are facilitated by the kind of collaboration between governments which the EU is able to underpin.
  2. European research infrastructure activity has increased in recent years, with the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) now coordinating investment. The legal framework for European research infrastructure consortia (ERICs), the specific legal form designed to facilitate the joint establishment and operation of research infrastructures of pan-European interest, entered into force in 2009. The UK is leading on one of the first ERICs, the European Social Survey. The ESS ERIC headquarters are located at City University London.

 

  1. Whilst researchers from non-EU Member States have access to these infrastructures in principle, those from member states may have preferential access.  Benefiting from the preferential access allows for streams of research which make extensive use of international infrastructure while being based in the UK, and which therefore contribute to the UK science base. Without treaty-like participation of the UK in these organisations this research would be seriously disadvantaged compared with that based in our European competitors.

 

  1. We would also like to draw attention to the following testament RCUK has made, which we endorse:

‘Maintaining access to a full range of world-class research facilities, both in the UK and internationally, is vital for the UK to remain a leading centre of research excellence. RCUK will continue to work to ensure that our researchers have access to leading research infrastructure and facilities wherever they may be located in the world. The UK’s participation in major European partnerships that are not part of EU institutions will not be affected. These include CERN, the European Southern Observatory (ESO), European Space Agency (ESA), Institut Laue-Langevin (ILL), European Spallation Source (ESS) and European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF). The UK also remains committed to other major international projects, including the Square Kilometre Array (SKA), T2K and the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). We will also continue to promote the UK’s world leading research infrastructure and facilities as a key factor in the vibrant research environment that serves as a magnet for the most talented researchers and multinational R&D companies.”

 

Global collaboration priorities

 

  1. As the UK prepares to leave the EU, government is presented with an opportunity to strengthen the UK research base’s international networks that are a vital contributor to research excellence.
  2. While almost half of the UK’s internationally co-authored publications were developed with EU partners, the UK also has many close non-EU partners. Between 2008 and 2012, four of the UK’s top research partners in terms of the number of co-authored publications were non-EU/EFTA countries. The UK’s top research partner was the USA, with Australia fifth, China eighth, and Canada ninth. As the UK repositions itself globally, there will be opportunities to enhance research collaboration with countries around the world. Government could enhance the UK’s collaboration opportunities with non-EU countries by:

PEOPLE

 

  1. The excellence of the UK research base relies on attracting the most talented researchers to pursue groundbreaking projects at British universities, regardless of where they come from. Almost half of UK academic papers are currently written in collaboration with at least one international partner, and this in turn drives the UK’s research productivity. 28% of the UK's academic workforce are non-UK citizens, 12% from countries outside the EU and 16% are from EU countries. These staff bring with them skills, experience and expertise sought the world over, and complement and enhance the quality of teaching and the quality of research. 
  2. Similarly, the UK attracts the talented researchers of the future. 43% of postgraduate research students are from other EU or non-EU countries. The UK is the world’s second most popular destination for international students, who spend money and create jobs, generating more than £9 billion and around 171,000 full-time equivalent jobs across the entire country, as well as providing 15% of university income and sustaining courses in crucial areas like science and technology where domestic demand is not sufficient. There are currently 124,575 EU students at UK universities – 5.5% of total student numbers. EU students alone generated an estimated £3.7 billion for the UK economy and 34,000 jobs across the country, based on 2011/12 figures.
  3. Enabling and encouraging talented students from across the world to choose to study in the UK enhances British cultural influence, and soft power. More than three out of four (77%) international students who graduate from a UK university state an intention to develop professional links with organisations in the UK in the future, and 87% seek to remain connected with their university – this rises to 90% amongst Chinese graduates. 
  4. The UK’s decision to leave the EU poses significant challenges to the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for talent, and the UK’s associated export earnings. Polling done by Hobsons after the referendum showed that 43% of prospective international students feel that Brexit has affected their decision to study in the UK. Of these students, 83 per cent say it has made them less likely to study in the UK. Universities are also reporting top researchers from elsewhere in the EU reconsidering taking up positions at UK universities in light of the uncertainties caused by Brexit. This risks both the excellence of UK research, the internationalisation of our campuses and the financial sustainability of the sector.

Immediate actions to safeguard EU staff and student recruitment

 

  1. In the short-term, UUK is calling on the UK Government

 

 

Wider priorities to enhance international staff and student recruitment

 

In the longer term, the UK Government should make it a priority to:

 

 

Promoting global opportunities for UK students and staff

 

  1. In addition, the employability, productivity and international connectedness of UK graduates and researchers depends on their ability to access international opportunities. Evidence shows that students who have studied abroad are 50% less likely to experience long-term unemployment, more likely to achieve academically and to reach a position of seniority in their professional lives. Research also demonstrates that mobile researchers are more productive than their counterparts who stay at home. In this context the UK Government should also prioritise:

 

 

FUNDING AND REGULATION

 

Funding

20.   UK universities have been extremely successful in attracting funding from abroad and particularly from the EU. Brexit presents a risk to the UK’s research base should adequate alternative sources of funding not be available to replace any foregone income. Between 2010/11 and 2014/15, UK universities received £5.2 billion research funding from EU sources, including EU governmental bodies and EU-based industry and charities[1]. The proportion of UK university research grant income from EU sources has steadily increased from 11.6% in 2010/11 to 14.1% in 2014/15.

 

21.   The UK has benefitted disproportionately from EU research grant funding in particular, securing significantly more funding through Framework Programme 7 than would be suggested by its population, its GDP, or its gross expenditure on research and development. The UK Office of National Statistics estimated the UK’s contribution to EU R&D at €5.4 billion in the period of 2007-2013[2]. During this time, the UK received €8.8 billion in EU funding for research and innovation[3]. From the inception of Horizon 2020 in 2014 up until May 2016, the UK received €981 million for the projects it coordinated alone.

 

22.   In addition, UK universities have received:

 

 

23.   The example of Switzerland demonstrates that losing full access to FPs can greatly reduce engagement. Under FP7, Switzerland coordinated 3.9% of all projects and was ranked in 7th position as a coordinator[4]. However, after failing to ratify a treaty allowing the freedom of movement of Croatian citizens, Swiss access to Horizon 2020 was reduced to just the European Research Council funds. In the first two years of Horizon 2020, the percentage of projects coordinated by Switzerland was just 0.3%, a fraction of its engagement in FP7.

 

24.   If the relationship negotiated with the EU prevents UK access to EU government funding for R&D or leads to a reduction in investment from EU-based industries or charities, this would represent a significant drop in overall UK research funding. There is an ongoing commitment by universities to drive efficiencies, however funding reductions cannot be compensated through efficiency savings and would instead impact on the excellence and sustainability of UK research.

 

25.   This underlines the fundamental importance of maintaining as high a level of access to EU funding as is possible. In addition, given future access is not guaranteed it further underlines the importance of national investment in the UK research base.

 

26.   Research is a long-term investment in the UK economy and society. Because research is a cumulative process, it needs long-term, patient investment to deliver maximum benefit to society. It often takes time for research to come to fruition and for its benefits to be accrued. Failure to invest adequate public funding in research or a loss of global reputation and collaboration will cause long term damage to the research base that will be impossible or at least extremely costly for future generations to reverse.

 

27.   The UK has fallen behind its competitors in terms of total R&D investment, spending less in this area than any other G8 country.[5]  This will put UK competitiveness, productivity and high-value jobs at risk if it is not reversed. The Government should produce a long term ‘roadmap’ for increasing public and private sector science R&D investment in the UK, as recommended by a previous Science and Technology Committee report.[6]

 

Key asks to secure stable and sustainable investment for higher education

 

 

Intellectual property and commercialisation of research
 

28.   The main risk here is a general decline in research funding, both from domestic and EU sources. The less funding there is for research, the less commercialisation and technology transfer there will be. This is a real risk for the UK innovation landscape.

 

29.   Harmonisation of regulation has been a major enabler for research collaboration, and a common set of rules underpins EU funded research collaboration, including on IP and the commercialisation of research. If the UK is to continue to collaborate with European partners, and in particular if it is to associate to Horizon 2020 it will need to comply with EU arrangements relating to IP and research commercialisation.

 

30.   In this context, it would also be beneficial if new arrangements enabled the UK to participate in the Unified Patent Court and in the Unitary Patent.

 

Regulation

31.   The EU has a significant influence on the regulatory environment of UK research and science. International collaboration is essential for research excellence, and harmonisation of regulatory and legal frameworks across participant countries significantly supports international collaboration through providing certainty and consistency. UK science and HE organisations have invested substantial time in negotiating these arrangements and it is paramount that Government considers these carefully in making transitional and new regulatory arrangements.

 

32.   Aside from the interim evaluation of the EU budget (MFF), Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ and Structural Funds, EU legislation that should be considered in particular includes: 
 

-          Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) 536/2014

-          General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679

-          Regulation on In vitro diagnostic medical devices 2012/0267(COD)

-          Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes

-          Directive 2013/35/EU - electromagnetic fields (physical agents)

-          Directive 2013/55/EU on the recognition of professional qualifications

-          Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society

-          Directive 2013/37/EU on the re-use of public sector information

-          UK employment law based on EU Directives, e.g. Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC, Transfers of Undertakings Directive 2001/23/EC (TUPE Regulations), Safety and Health at Work Directive 89/391/EEC
 

33.   This list is not exhaustive; a more extensive list may be found at Annex 2. After 40 years of membership, the influence of EU law is wide-reaching and this needs to be taken into consideration. We would recommend the Government, working closely with experts across the higher education sector, to undertake a thorough analysis of existing EU Regulations valid in the UK and EU Directives transposed into UK law. Our understanding is the latter would be unaffected by a repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 (presumably necessary to leave the EU) and it would then be up to the Government to explicitly repeal any of the UK Acts that have transposed the EU Directives. EU Regulations would presumably immediately fall away if the EC Act

 

August 2016

 


Annex 1: Different models for UK-EU relationship and their impact on research

 

 

EEA agreement

 

  1. The EEA agreement requires signatories to adopt EU legislation in all policy areas of the Single Market. This includes the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as well as competition and state aid rules. In addition, the EEA agreement sets out a number of horizontal policies, including consumer protection, company law, environment, and social policy.

 

  1. Protocol 31 of the EEA agreement sets out that EEA countries are able to participate fully in EU FPs, and describes the terms of this participation. This includes (1) the terms under which EEA states will contribute financially, and (2) the extent of EEA states’ involvement in EC committees and agencies related to research and development. Because access to EU programmes is set out in the agreement, it is not necessary to renegotiate access for each multi-year FP.

 

  1. While the EEA agreement requires the acceptance of the freedom of movement of people, it seems possible within the parameters of EU single market legislation and the EEA agreement for the UK to negotiate specific terms and conditions. For example, it may be possible to accept the broad principle of freedom of movement of people in accordance with the Treaty, but negotiate restrictions on the associate rights and entitlements of EU citizens that are set out in various derivatives. Article 112 of the EEA Agreement also allows EEA states to take unilateral action to restrict freedom of movement in the event of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties.” Any such measures could impact on the free movement of researchers and students in practice.

 

European Neighbourhood Policy

  1. ENP consists of a series of bilateral agreements and regional frameworks used by the EU to offer financial aid, market access and visa facilitations. These are offered to a select number of countries on the condition of domestic reforms in specific political, economic and administrative areas. ENP is used to advance EU foreign policy and to ensure stability and security on the EU’s borders. The aims of the ENP may not align with the EU’s objectives when establishing a relationship with the UK.

 

  1. A number of ENP countries have negotiated full access to FPs. However, they do need to renegotiate access to each new multi-year FP. ENP countries do not have a deep level of access into the single market, and as thus have not had to accept the free movement of people.

 

 

Bilateral agreement including associate status to FPs

 

  1. The UK may choose to establish a relationship with the EU based on a series of bilateral agreements on a range of issues. The UK may be able to negotiate an arrangement that includes Associate member status to FPs, like Switzerland did. Switzerland does have to renegotiate access to each new multi-year FP with the EU. This renewal requires approval of the European Parliament and the Swiss government. Historically, this has been a time-consuming process, taking approximately two years. As a result of delays, Switzerland missed the first calls of FP6. If the UK has to undertake the same process as Switzerland does, there is always a risk that there could be similar delays. This could impact significantly on the UK’s reliability and attractiveness as a partner and project coordinator.

 

  1. In addition, Switzerland’s access to Horizon 2020 has now been restricted following its failure to ratify a protocol accepting the free movement of Croatian citizens in 2014. This demonstrates that engagement with FPs through this type of model could at short notice be blocked if disagreements with the EU arise, creating uncertainty for projects underway and potentially hindering the strength of UK research collaboration.

 

 

Bilateral agreements with Third Party status

 

  1.                                                                                                                                                                                     The UK might also negotiate a bilateral Science and Technology agreement that includes Third Country status to FPs. Countries with bilateral S&T agreements may participate in FPs, but do not contribute financially and are not generally eligible for funding. Current countries with such agreements include the US, Australia and Canada. Policy makers and researchers from these countries are not involved in any agenda setting and the do not have an observer seat on any policy committees. They are also unable to coordinate projects through FPs, and are typically not able to access all part of the FPs. A number of countries, including the USA, have set up specific funding streams to help their researchers engage with EU FPs.

 

 

 

 

Main advantages

Main disadvantages

Free movement of people

Scenario 1:  EEA agreement

  • As an EEA country, the UK can become an Associate Country in Horizon 2020 in accordance to provisions in the EEA agreement
  • Access will not have to be renegotiated for each new framework programme
  • The UK would have full access to Horizon 2020 and future FPs as an equal partner
  • The UK would have observer status on ERA’s strategic policy committees (eg. ERAC, ESFRI, programme committees, ERA-working groups etc.)
  • The UK will have to make a financial contribution through a GDP formula
  • Required

Scenario 2: European Neighbour Policy

  • The UK could become an Associate Country in Horizon 2020 (as long as it meets three criteria) and most likely in future initiatives too
  • If it chooses, the UK could pay for full access to Horizon 2020 as an equal partner
  • The UK could potentially negotiate observer status on ERA’s strategic policy committees
  • The UK will have to make a financial contribution through GDP formula
  • The UK would need to negotiate initial associate country status to FPs and engagement in ERA. Participation would be subject to priorities set out in action plans
  • There would be a need to renegotiate the S&T agreement for each new EU multi-annual Framework Programme (though this is likely to change in the near future)
  • There is a risk that there may be gaps in agreements between FPs
  • Not required

Scenario 3: Bilateral S&T agreement as an Associate Country

  • Status as associate country
  • UK has full access to Horizon 2020 as an equal partner
  • Strong integration in Horizon 2020/ ERA through bilateral agreement
  • The UK could negotiate observer status on ERA’s strategic policy committees
  • The UK will have to make a financial contribution through a GDP formula
  • Level of access would be subject to negotiation and may not be a priority for the UK government
  • There would be a need to renegotiate the S&T agreement for each new EU multi-annual Framework Programme
  • There is a risk that there may be gaps in agreements between FPs
  • Not necessarily required, but this is part of all current agreements allowing a deep level of access to the single market

Scenario 4: Bilateral S&T agreement as a Third Country

  • The UK could be more selective, and only participate in thematic areas that are of interest to UK stakeholders
  • The budgetary contribution from the government to the EU is reduced, as only contributions to specific projects are paid
  • Parts of Horizon 2020 would not be accessible to the UK
  • The UK would not be able to apply for ERC funding
  • UK researchers could not coordinate a consortia or a project
  • The UK would most likely not be able to take part as observers on research policy committees
  • Could greatly reduce UK research collaborations with researchers in the EU and EEA
  • Not required

Annex 2:

 

 

 

Directives and Regulations affecting higher education and R&D

 

 

Innovation / Research

 

 

Education & Training

 

 

Labour law / Health and Safety

 

 

Investment

 

 

Freedom of movement

 

 

 

Animal research

 

 

Chemicals[7]

 

 

Intellectual property rights

 

 

 

 

 


[[1]] http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/cl,142013/

[[1]] http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/cl,142013/

[1] HESA finance record, 2014-15

[2] . UK Office for National Statistics, UK Government Expenditure on Science, Engineering and Technology (See http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit1/science- -engineering-and-technology-statistics/2013/stbset-2013.html , accessed 23 September 2015)

[3] European Commission 2015, EU expenditure and revenue 2007 – 2013 (See http://ec.europa.eu/ budget/figures/2007-2013/index_en.cfm, accessed 6 October 2015)

[4] Framework Programme projects have a minimum of three participants, one of which will be the project lead or coordinator who is responsible to the EC for managing the grant and will receive its largest part.  

[5] http://scienceisvital.org.uk/2015/03/13/press-release-uk-science-funding-gdp/

[6] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmsctech/340/340.pdf

[7] Full list of most relevant chemical legislation (excluding REACH) and related aspects of legislation applied to downstream industries available here.