Space Industry

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray; it is fitting that you are in the Chair today, because you have been such a champion for Spaceport Cornwall —I hope that that might get me an extra minute or two—alongside the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I want to correct him slightly. He talked about the failure of the launch, but the launch was actually successful; the failure came after. We have to take the positives from that, because this will be a learning process.

As a former teacher, I know that there are two things that get children really excited: dinosaurs and space. If we could get dinosaurs on space rockets, we would have everything sorted! The space sector is important for technology development, Earth observation and, increasingly, security and defence. Scotland plays a key role in that. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), whom I congratulate on securing this important debate, about the importance of Glasgow in satellite manufacturing, with companies like Clyde Space and Alba Orbital. We also have space data analysis in both Glasgow and Edinburgh, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).

What we are not so good at—and this is not just in Scotland but across the UK—is selling ourselves: telling people what we are doing in the industry. In Glasgow, Edinburgh and other places where there are space sectors, why do we not have big signs with rockets and propulsion units? That would tell young people that the space sector is here, alive and vibrant, and that there are jobs to be had in it. The Government could play a role in that.

We have heard about the five potential spaceports in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about SaxaVord in Shetland, and we are looking forward to seeing the first vertical launch from that spaceport. We also have North Uist, A’Mhoine in Sutherland—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned that—Machrihanish in Argyll, and of course Prestwick.

Scotland has great ambition in the sector. There is ability in our universities, so it is not a surprise or a coincidence that so many space companies have set up in Scotland. The ambitions are to capture a £4 billion market share of the sector by 2030 and an increase in employment in the space sector to 20,000. Those are ambitious targets, but they are achievable. To reach its full potential, the industry needs proper Government support. We have rejoined Horizon Europe, which is useful but there have been years outside Horizon Europe, and space talent now have to pay visa and NHS fees to come here, which is problematic.

Four years ago, the Government bought a £400 million stake in the satellite company OneWeb. On talking to the then Science and Technology Committee in 2021, Chris McLaughlin from OneWeb told the Committee that by 2024-25 we would be building satellites in the UK. We have not seen that yet, so I ask the Minister: we have heard about lots of companies doing great work, but how many jobs has OneWeb created in the UK for our £400 million stake? What steps have the Government taken to ensure that OneWeb’s second generation satellites will be built here in the UK? How are the Government raising awareness of the opportunities in the space sector, and what representations has the Minister made about reducing visa and NHS fees for those working in it?

There are real opportunities here. It is right that we inspire the next generation. To do so, we need physics teachers being paid proper wages. Without paying them proper wages, they will take their skills and work elsewhere. We need them here.

Scotland was famously at the heart of the first industrial revolution. As we enter a new era of industrial revolution, Scotland will once again play a key role in creating and developing new technologies in the space sector. I look forward to seeing more launches across the UK. I agree with the comments made today: there is room for horizontal and vertical. The more spaceports we have, the more we become a focus for the space industry across the world. I am sorry for the time I have taken, Mrs Murray—your tribute at the start took me extra seconds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to champion the spaceport in his constituency and to mention the importance of what is called private space, where companies such as Orbex are pioneering new ways of reaching for the stars. A number of hon. Members have also pointed out the significance of space in making an economic contribution and inspiring future generations. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s wonderful suggestion of a space youth fair—let us see what we can do together with the UK Space Agency. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) made exactly the same point about Spaceport Cornwall.

It is often pointed out that the United Kingdom could be more joined up in its space endeavours. The space council, in whichever iteration, brings together other Departments in orbit with the Ministry of Defence so that we can continue to punch above our weight. We have recently opened a joint space command centre for both civilian and military space.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned his hard work before Spaceport Cornwall was even established, which is huge testimony to the work he does for his constituents across north Cornwall. He also mentioned Goonhilly and the very significant space cluster that exists in Cornwall. The Government remain extremely supportive of Spaceport Cornwall and all its endeavours, and the point is very well made about the launch capability of the United Kingdom, which I talk about to both the UK Space Agency and the Ministry of Defence in these uncertain times.

Moving to the other end of these isles, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) talked about Shetland’s spaceport. It does indeed have formidable natural advantages, and so inspired by the opportunity, the Government resolve to do everything they can. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor so significantly put an investment into SaxaVord, subject to reaching acceptable terms. In this very important week for defence spending, I offer this small vignette: the Labour party cut defence and closed RAF Saxa Vord, while this Conservative Government are investing in the future of Shetland. I hope that does not provoke an intervention from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). [Interruption.] It is a fact. Facts sometimes can be provocative, but they are nevertheless facts.

We are bringing together many UK assets in space in the Harwell science and innovation campus space cluster. While it is also a significant contribution to levelling up, we have published not just the space industrial plan but plans for space clusters and space investment funds. I believe that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and myself will both be speaking at the North West Space Cluster in June, which will give us both an opportunity to commit to the future of space in that important region of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest raised a point about Adam Smith, space is at the heart of the comparative advantage and the productivity of this nation.

It is a busy world in space. It is going to be a banner year. We hope to see space launches from European soil from the first time. Just this week, the UK Space Agency announced an £8 million investment in the UK innovation & science seed fund. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest opened the debate, he talked about the importance of getting capital to flow and of the connection with the City of London and finance. I hope that £8 million at the earliest stage—the seed and even the pre-seed stage—of the lifecycle could make a real contribution to growing the space supply chain and skills.

We will be responding to the Regulatory Horizons Council report on space well within the allotted timeframe. Before we break for the summer we will be publishing the space workforce skills plan, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central raised. That is something very close to my heart and, I suspect, to the hearts of other Members. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has left the Chamber, but Northern Ireland, as with all the regions, is an important part of the space sector. Its legacy and history in aerospace engineering is something that I firmly hope we can continue to bring to bear.

Time is running out and there is so much more we could talk about. We are off to the European Space Agency, and our commitment to that body remains as strong as ever.

[Carol Monaghan]

The Minister has not mentioned visa fees for space experts coming here, nor has he mentioned OneWeb.

[Andrew Griffith]

I would be delighted if the hon. Lady wanted to apply for another debate. I can see that there is a significant appetite to discuss some of these issues. The Government are very committed to maximising the economic and strategic advantage of OneWeb. It is a company that is based here. I have visited it just down the road in Shepherd’s Bush—I think it is still called Shepherd’s Bush. The new White City campus is where thousands of satellites, licensed and regulated out of the UK, are being flown as we speak and delivering all sorts of contributions to society. I am very supportive of the hon. Lady’s contribution to science, so I would love to engage further when we have more time. Mrs Murray is looking at me to say, “Hurry up.”

We will continue to work across this House through organisations such as the all-party parliamentary group, with industry, with the supply chain, and with our partners internationally, both through multilateral forums such as the European Space Agency and bilaterally. We will do all that with the objective of ensuring that the United Kingdom remains a strong spacefaring nation, and that the citizens of this country benefit from the prosperity and the inspiration that comes with space.

Human-specific Medical Research Techniques

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for securing this debate on what is clearly an important topic and a source of increasing public concern. He mentioned a poll commissioned by Cruelty Free International and carried out by YouGov in 2021, which found that seven in 10 adults believe it is unacceptable to use animals for experiments when alternative non-animal research methods are available. That is an important statistic to bear in mind throughout this debate.

Scotland is a nation of animal lovers. We often get correspondence about animals. People are very exercised about this issue. They love animals, and they want to be world leaders in protecting animal rights. The use of live animals for scientific purposes has long been a source of discomfort. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) quoted Home Office figures that point to over 3 million procedures involving animals having taken place in 2021. Worryingly, that was an increase of 6% on the previous year.

Given the importance of medical research and innovation in 2021—I think we all know about the development of the covid vaccine, in which data from animals was used before there was a move to human clinical trials—we can acknowledge that without a viable replacement, we cannot stop the use of animals in medical research immediately at the stroke of a pen. To try to be balanced, I will also say that a ban on animal research in the UK could move that research to countries with poorer regulation and actually make things worse. That is something to remember.

However, it is incumbent on the research community, the pharmaceutical companies and indeed the Government to funnel resources into the development of techniques that do not involve animals. It is worrying that the figures continue to trend upwards, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could address that increase. Opposition to the use of animals in medical research is not limited to concerns about cruelty and animal rights; there are significant questions regarding its effectiveness. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, pointed out that 90% of new medicines fail to pass human trials because animal responses cannot be used to predict human responses. Dr Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of The BMJ, reports that it is

“nearly impossible to rely on most animal data to predict whether or not an intervention will have a favourable clinical benefit-risk ratio in human subjects.”

If animal testing is proving a more and more unreliable method of testing medical interventions, the justification for continued and increasing use of animals in medical research appears to be limited. Considering that evidence, we must question whether sufficient urgency has been shown in the search for human-specific alternatives to the use of live animals. Last week, I spoke in the main Chamber against the continued use of fur, in particular fur for fashion purposes. I talked about the ceremonial hats worn by the King’s Guard and how much that was a symbol of cruelty. Much of last week’s debate, however, focused on fashion. Fashion is a human want, but in today’s debate we are talking about medicine and clinical intervention, which are a human need. Despite that distinction, there is a key similarity in both debates—there are alternatives.

Isolated human tissue and cells have been used as a replacement for live animals in drug discovery and development. The For Life On Earth campaign group points out that

“blood, tissues, and organ cultures are ideal test-beds”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, talked about AI and computer modelling, and how those can give us another potential alternative. Against the backdrop of the ever-developing capabilities of AI, it is an area that we must explore fully.

On many occasions, the Government have spoken about their ambition to become a “science and technology superpower”; I believe we can also be a superpower in animal rights. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk talk about a human-specific technologies Act; that is the way we should be going with regulation and legislation. Things are out of date and have not moved as quickly as the technology. It is in all our interests, be it from the point of view of animal cruelty or of effectiveness, to prioritise the move away from animal testing towards a more humane framework for medical research. We need to phase out the use of animal testing in scientific research, and to develop human-specific new approach methodologies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

One of the companies based in NETPark is Pragmatic Semiconductor, which is innovating chip production. It has indicated that it would consider moving its operations overseas if the UK fails to produce a semiconductor strategy that funds and supports chip production. We have been asking for this strategy for years now, so can the Minister assure the House not only that the strategy is imminent and will be published very shortly, but that it will properly fund and support companies such as Pragmatic?

[George Freeman]

Yes. The Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), has already met the company concerned, and in a matter of days we will be setting out the semiconductor strategy, which will answer exactly the question that the hon. Lady has raised.

Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

We can all agree that the free flow of personal data across borders is essential to the economy, not just within the UK but with other countries, including our biggest trading partner, the EU. Reforms to our data protection framework must have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that we do not put EU-UK data flows at risk.

Despite the Government’s promises of reforms to empower people in the use of their data, the Bill instead threatens to undermine privacy and data protection. It potentially moves the UK away from the “adequacy” concept in the EU GDPR, and gives weight to the idea that different countries can maintain data protection standards in different but equally effective ways. The only way that we can properly maintain standards is by having a standard across the different trading partners, but the Bill risks creating a scenario where the data of EU citizens could be passed through the UK to countries with which the EU does not have an agreement. The changes are raising red flags in Europe. Many businesses have spoken out about the negative impacts of the Bill’s proposals. Many of them will continue to set their controls to EU standards and operate on EU terms to ensure that they can continue to trade there.

According to conservative estimates, the loss of the adequacy agreement could cost £1.6 billion in legal fees alone. That figure does not include the cost resulting from disruption of digital trade and investments. The Open Rights Group says:

“Navigating multiple data protection regimes will significantly increase costs and create bureaucratic headaches for businesses.”

Although I understand that the Bill is an attempt to reduce the bureaucratic burden for businesses, we are now potentially asking those businesses to operate with two different standards, which will cause them a bigger headache. It would be useful if the Government confirmed that they have sought legal advice on the adequacy impact of the Bill, and that they have confirmed with EU partners that the EU is content that the Bill and its provisions will not harm EU citizens or undermine the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU.

Several clauses of the Bill cause concern. We need more clarity on those that expand the powers of the Home Secretary and the police, and we will require much further discussion on them in Committee. Given what has been revealed over the past few months about the behaviour of some members of the Metropolitan police, there are clauses in the Bill that should cause us concern. A national security certificate that would give the police immunity when they commit crimes by using personal data illegally would cause quite a headache for many of us. The Government have not tried to explain why they think that police should be allowed to operate in the darkness, which they must now rectify if they are to improve public trust.

The Bill will also expand what counts as an “intelligence service” for the purposes of data protection law, again at the Home Secretary's discretion. The Government argue that this would create a “simplified” legal framework, but, in reality, it will hand massive amounts of people’s personal information to the police. This could include the private communications as well as information about an individual’s health, political belief, religious belief or sex life.

The new “designation notice” regime would not be reviewable by the courts, so Parliament might never find out how and when the powers have been used, given that there is no duty to report to Parliament. The Home Secretary is responsible for both approving and reviewing designation notices, and only a person who is “directly affected” by a such a notice will be able to challenge it, yet the Home Secretary would have the power to keep the notice secret, meaning that even those affected would not know it and therefore could not possibly challenge it.

These are expansive broadenings of the powers not only of the Secretary of State, but of the police and security services. If the UK Government cannot adequately justify these powers, which they have not done to date, they must be withdrawn or, at the very least, subject to meaningful parliamentary oversight.

Far from giving people greater power over their data, the Bill will stop the courts, Parliament and individuals from challenging illegal uses of data. Under the Bill, organisations can deny or charge a fee to individuals for the right to access information. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned the difficulty he had with a constituent. I think we can all have some sympathy with that, because many of us have probably experienced similar requests from members of the public. However, it is the public’s right to have access to the data that we hold. If an organisation decides that these requests are “vexatious or excessive”, they can refuse them, but what is “vexatious or excessive”? These words are vague and open to interpretation. Moreover, charging a fee will create a barrier for some people, particularly those on lower incomes, and effectively restricts control of data to more affluent citizens.

The Bill changes current rules that prevent companies and the Government from making solely automated decisions about individuals that could have legal or other significant effects on their lives. We have heard a lot about the potential benefits of AI and how it could be used to enhance our lives, but for public trust and buy-in of AI, we need to know that there is some oversight. Without that, there will always be a question hanging over it. The SyRI case in the Netherlands involved innocuous datasets such as household water usage being used by an automated system to accuse individuals of benefit fraud.

The Government consultation response acknowledges that, for respondents,

“the right to human review of an automated decision was a key safeguard”.

But despite the Government acknowledging the importance of a human review in an automated decision, clause 11, if implemented, would mean that solely automated decision making is permitted in a wider range of contexts. Many of us get excited about AI, but it is important to acknowledge that AI still makes mistakes.

The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to approve international transfers to countries with weak data protection, so even if the Bill does not make data security in the UK weaker, it will weaken the protections of UK citizens’ data by allowing it to be transferred abroad in cases with lower safeguards.

It is useful to hear a couple of stakeholder responses. The Public Law Project has said:

“The Data Protection and Digital Information (No.2) Bill would weaken important data protection rights and safeguards, making it more difficult for people to know how their data is being used”.

The Open Rights Group has said:

“The government has an opportunity to strengthen the UK’s data protection regime post Brexit. However, it is instead setting the country on a dangerous path that undermines trust, furthers economic instability, and erodes fundamental rights.”

Since we are talking about a Bill under the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, it is important to hear from the Royal Society, which says that losing adequacy with the EU would be damaging for scientific research in the UK, creating new costs and barriers for UK-EU research collaborations. While the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) is right about the importance of being able to share data, particularly scientific data—and we understand the importance of that for things such as covid vaccines—we need to make sure this Bill does not set up further hurdles that could prevent that.

There is probably an awful lot for us to thrash out in Committee. The SNP will not vote against Second Reading tonight, but I appeal to those on the Government Front Bench to give an opportunity for hon. Members to amend and discuss this Bill properly in Committee.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I cannot remember ever speaking in a Budget debate dedicated entirely to science, so it is a real pleasure. Like the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), I have a science degree, although mine is of a different flavour, being in physics. It is nice to speak in this debate as the SNP spokesperson.

A flourishing research and development landscape will produce major economic benefits, so the focus on science should be a positive. The problem is that this Government are not creating an environment conducive to flourishing research and development. First and foremost, they have to convince those working in the sector that they are valued. They have to consider the push and pull factors for a career in science. The Secretary of State talked about financially stable families, but she has to recognise that the wages and job insecurity mean that many cannot afford to stay in the sector, so they leave for other occupations.

I will now digress a little. A number of years ago, I visited a hydroelectric museum in the Alps. It is more than 150 years since we started developing hydroelectric as a means of generating electricity. The museum had an interesting display that said hydroelectric power would have been developed to a far greater extent if not for the discovery of oil. We saw oil stifling innovation, particularly in renewable sources, 150 years ago, and now we have the nuclear revival.

Rather than investing properly in renewable technologies, this Government are happy to throw billions at what they consider to be an easy source of energy. Proper action on decarbonisation would mean revising grid connection charges that see Scottish renewable producers paying, on average, £7.36 per megawatt-hour to access the grid, whereas producers in England pay, on average, 49p per megawatt-hour. Worse still, producers in Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg pay absolutely nothing. The Budget was an opportunity to address this inequality, to encourage greater energy innovation and, ultimately, to lower energy bills for my constituents and for constituents across the UK. Instead, we are repeating the mistakes of the past by taking the easy but expensive and environmentally unfriendly route.

Nuclear is environmentally unfriendly. The mining of uranium is a dirty process, as a lot of acid is used to extract it from rocks. There is then the storage of used fuel rods. For the Government to classify nuclear power as environmentally sustainable, with the same investment incentives as renewable energy, is a sinister attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes, and it shows a lack of real commitment to renewables.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on photonics and quantum, I am pleased to see a continued focus on quantum technologies. The creation of the quantum hubs in 2014, to which the Secretary of State referred, enabled the UK to place itself at the centre of this technology, and a number of Scottish universities—notably, Glasgow, Strathclyde, Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt—played a key role. But the sector requires sustained support and proper vision.

I was recently made aware of an ambitious proposal made by a group at Glasgow University, in collaboration with universities across the UK, to secure commercial leadership in the manufacturing of quantum hardware, which is crucial for its penetration into volume applications. A national institute for quantum integration would deliver nano-fabrication facilities for the integration of this hardware. The Secretary of State said, in her statement two weeks ago on the science and technology framework, that she will have

“a ruthlessly outcome-focused approach to this new Department.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 182.]

I would love to hear her thoughts on a national institute for quantum integration absolutely focused on outcomes.

With quantum, as with other technologies that are critical to national security, the issue is rarely starting up; it is almost always scaling up. There does not seem to be much commitment at all to supporting the scaling up of small and medium-sized enterprises. To scale up, some companies will potentially need to move out, which means that some are looking to other places around the world in order to develop their technologies. Of course, we are still waiting for the semiconductor strategy, something that would support the development of quantum, photonics and the wider technology sectors. Perhaps the Secretary of State will prioritise that.

It was disappointing to hear, yet again, that investment in carbon capture and storage is not coming to the Scottish Acorn project. We need such clusters across the UK, in every part of it. The Acorn project is perfectly situated and the proposals are mature enough to merit Government funding; this should not be a phase 2, with something in the future, perhaps, if we are lucky.

[Dr Evans]

It was announced in the Budget that £20 billion would go towards carbon capture. Is that not substantial enough?

[Carol Monaghan]

That would be substantial if it were coming to Scotland, so when will we see action on the Scottish cluster?

The Chancellor also made a song and dance last week about R&D tax credits. That system has been grossly mismanaged and therefore abused in the past. I would like more detail on how the new system will provide more value for money for both taxpayers and genuine researchers. How will it be managed? What checks and balances will be taking place? We need to make sure, once again, that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

The ambitions of the Secretary of State, and indeed the Prime Minister, in science are laudable. However, they fail to mention the key issue: the people. That issue cannot be solved by cash alone. Supposed commitments to science clash entirely with this Government’s hostile environment on immigration, and the lack of progress on association to Horizon is having a huge impact. While the Secretary of State dithers about whether association represents value for money, researchers are leaving the UK for better opportunities abroad, where they can develop rich collaborations and enjoy freedom of movement.

In response to last week’s Budget, Sir Adrian Smith, president of the Royal Society, said:

“After a prolonged period of uncertainty, the Government urgently needs to deliver on its pledge to associate to Horizon Europe, and set out a longer-term, cross-party plan for science. This is vital to restore confidence among global research talent and investors that they should build their futures in the UK.”

Stephen Phipson, the head of Make UK, said that Horizon had

“always been one of those areas of the EU budget where the UK gets more out than it puts in”.

A number of other notable organisations in the UK —including the CBI, the British Heart Foundation, the Russell Group, the University Alliance and Cancer Research UK—and in EU R&D sectors have signed a joint statement to the UK Government, urging rapid progress on association to EU programmes, including Horizon Europe, Copernicus and Euratom.

However, there were worrying reports last week that the Prime Minister is unconvinced on Horizon, with the Financial Times reporting that “senior colleagues” said the Prime Minister was “sceptical” about the value of Horizon Europe and the cost of participation. Researchers need to know where the UK is headed. Is the dithering on Horizon a deliberate attempt to kick the can down the road? More than anything, Horizon is about people; there is no monetary replacement for this. So will this Government keep blaming the EU while projects and collaborations are lost?

However, there are areas where money is important and where I would have wanted to see action in the Budget. We heard from the Secretary of State about financially stable families. Let us assume that I am a quantum researcher from somewhere in the EU, I am at the top of my field and I have an invitation to join a team at one of the UK quantum hubs. I will, first, have to apply for my global talent visa, at a cost of £623, and that will also cost me £623 for my spouse and for each of my children. I have two children under 18, so my costs are now £2,492. I have to pay the annual health surcharge for myself, my spouse and my children, so that is £624 for myself and my spouse. There is great news, as children get a discount and so it is only £470 for each of them. We are now at £4,680 for me to come here under the global talent scheme, although that assumes that I have only two children—I know the Government like to pretend that people do not have any more than two children, but many of us do.

As an EU researcher, I have many options, so why would I put myself through the hassle of such an immigration regime? That is hardly how we attract the brightest and best. If the Government are serious about science, those fees have to be dropped. It would not be costly and it would have great benefits.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making excellent points about the cost involved in people coming to our city to work and share their talents. Is she as concerned as I am about stories from constituents of mine who have been here already and have been asked to take on a job with a promotion, but who have almost lost that opportunity because of Home Office delays?

[Carol Monaghan]

I do share those concerns. I have heard stories about individuals who were invited here and who were hoping to come, but the delays meant that that opportunity was lost. These people have been asked to come to the UK because of their particular skills. We are losing talent time and again.

While we are at it, international students seem to be a target again. The return of the post-study work visa took a lot of effort on the part of Members—from both sides of the House, it has to be said—but there is now news that the Home Secretary is talking about cutting it again. Many people who work in science first came here as international students and on the promise of a post-study work visa. There must be no change to the current system.

A commitment to research and development means a commitment to people, to international collaboration and to developing an immigration environment that supports companies, research groups and individuals to contribute. Ultimately, if that cannot happen in the UK, the powers should be given to Scotland. We will develop an immigration system that works for our science sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Last week, Stephen Phipson, head of Make UK, said that Horizon had

“always been one of those areas of the EU budget where the UK gets more out than it puts in”.

While the Secretary of State dithers about whether association is value for money, researchers are leaving the UK for better opportunities abroad, where they can develop rich collaborations and enjoy freedom of movement. The issue needs urgent action, so when will we have a decision on whether the UK will associate to Horizon?

[Michelle Donelan]

We have not changed our position regarding Horizon and association was in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement. We welcome the EU’s recent openness to the discussion, after two years of delay, and I discussed the matter directly with the EU ambassador yesterday.

Science and Technology Framework

Carol Monaghan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

My ministerial team and I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend’s Committee. It was good to speak to him yesterday. As I said then, funding remains available to finalise association with EU programmes. In the event that we do not associate, UK researchers and businesses will receive at least as much as they would have through Horizon over the spending review period.

The Government have stepped in to continue to support the UK’s world-leading R&D sector. We have extended the Horizon guarantee until the end of June 2023, as we announced yesterday. The Government have provided £882 million to date via UKRI through the guarantee and they will still deliver their commitment to invest £20 billion per annum in research and development by 2024-25. That is not impacted by the £1.6 billion to which my right hon. Friend refers.

On Horizon, as I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), we have not changed our position. We continue to try to associate with Horizon, and we look forward to engaging in more deep and meaningful conversations with the EU on what is possible as we work out the potential options. I will keep my right hon. Friend and this House as informed as possible as plans develop.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I welcome the creation of the new Department and welcome the Secretary of State to her position. I thank her for advance sight of her statement.

The framework should be seen very much as a starting point. I have to say that the Secretary of State’s comments on Horizon will not give the sector much assurance at the moment. That view is echoed by the Royal Society, which says:

“The extension of the funding underwrite announced today is a welcome intervention”

as a safety net,

“but it is yet another sticking plaster, when the ultimate goal needs to be speedy association”.

Sir Paul Nurse’s review also describes Horizon Europe association as essential, so we need a timeframe for when a decision on Horizon will be taken. We have been hearing from the Government for three years that their intention and hope is that there will be such an association, but we need a timeframe.

Dr Tim Bradshaw of the Russell Group has said that the £370 million of new funding falls far short of the £1.6 billion that had been earmarked for research collaborations with the European Union, so it would be useful to know how the Government can continue promoting science in the UK when they are driving down funding in comparison with what was provided before Brexit.

The framework commits to establishing

“competitive advantage in attracting international talent to the UK”,

but Royal Society analysis has shown that work and study visa fees are up to six times higher than in comparable science nations. What plans do the Government have to reduce visa fees in line with other science nations?

The Secretary of State has chosen future communications as an area of focus. In 2020, a $500 million stake was invested in OneWeb to support such communications. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the progress of the OneWeb investment in terms of future communications?

Finally, we have been asking about the semiconductor strategy for many months now. When is it likely to be published?

[Michelle Donelan]

On Horizon, the hon. Member seems to be rewriting history, which is slightly disappointing. We have tried for two years to associate. It was the EU, not this Government, that linked the issue with the Northern Ireland protocol. We now stand ready to continue those conversations. The £1.6 billion was earmarked for Horizon. We were not able to affiliate and associate with Horizon, which is why the money is no longer available, but we stand committed in terms of our record investment of £20 billion, which we have pledged for 2024-25.

On the conversation around attracting talent, we think it is very important that we are supporting industry and the opportunities available, so there are jobs in this country for people to come to and so they will want to forge a life here.

The semiconductor strategy will be out imminently. We have been doing a great deal of work to ensure that it comes out in exactly the right place.