Oral evidence: Leave the EU: implications and opportunities for science and research, HC 502Wednesday 13 July 2016

Oral evidence, 13 July 2016.

Witnesses

Jo Johnson MP, Minister of State for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and David Wilson, Head of European Knowledge and Innovation, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, gave evidence.

Chair

Minister, welcome and thank you for coming at such short notice. We are very aware that it is less than three weeks since the referendum, so we do not expect you to have complete answers on every aspect of exit negotiations for science and innovation yet, but given the seriousness for the community we are very grateful that you have come before us to talk about some of the major risks and opportunities. You are well aware that we have just heard from Research Councils UK and Innovate UK. I was very struck by a comment from Innovate UK that we cannot afford to have a two‑year pause in our pursuit of excellence. That is a very good phrase to get us started. Have the Government undertaken any risk analysis of the impact of Brexit on science and innovation yet? What do you think are the high probability, high impact consequences for science and innovation?

Jo Johnson

Thank you very much for inviting me to come before your Committee today. I am of course aware that there are a lot of questions and there is a lot of uncertainty in the sector and the science community, and I will do what I can today to add to the reassurances that I have offered over the last two and a half weeks. I am delighted to be here to try to put some minds at rest. First of all, the Government are fully committed to science and to keeping us, as you have put it, Madam Chairman, as a science powerhouse, a science superpower. That is how we see ourselves as a country, and we want to do everything we can to make the most of the opportunities that are going to arise over the years ahead and to limit some of the risks that the sector has identified. Yes, in answer to your question, we are of course undertaking a very considerable amount of planning and risk analysis at the moment across the whole gamut of our relations with the European Union, and science, because it is such an important feature of our relations with the European Union, is a big part of that.

Chair

To turn the question on its head, and perhaps to offer a ray of sunlight in what has been quite a significant amount of anxiety, do you see any opportunities in the midst of these stresses on the sector?

Jo Johnson

It is incumbent on all of us to scour the horizon for opportunities and to see where we can make the most of the new regime that we will be moving towards. I can certainly see a strong demand from Government to work with the sector and with the Committee—your work is really important—to help us identify where the new flexibilities that we might enjoy in a new relationship to the European Union might lie and how we can best exploit them.

Chair

Previous witnesses have come in from various parts of the sector, from universities, research and foundations, and they have highlighted particular aspects of EU membership that they believe have helped our science and innovation sector to flourish—the free movement of people, access to markets, harmonised regulation, funding mechanisms and so on. Which factors do you think the UK Government should be focusing on in exit negotiations to make sure that we get a good deal for UK science?

Jo Johnson

There are many features of our current relations with the European Union that we will want to make sure are fully appreciated, first of all by Government and then by the negotiating team that will set about constructing our new relationship with the European Union. The work that the science and university community did in the run‑up to the referendum, when there was by and large a solid block of opinion that saw the advantages of staying in the European Union outweigh the disadvantages, is not wasted in that respect. There is a solid body of evidence that the science community put together during the referendum campaign that will now be put to good use in ensuring that there is a clear message to Government about the importance of ensuring that we continue to derive benefits from the new relationship that we end up constructing with the European Union, making sure that there is a system of funding for excellence in Europe, funding science on the basis of excellence, making sure that we can continue to be seen as a country that gives a warm welcome to the brightest and best scientists, researchers and academics from Europe and from around the world, and gives a clear signal that we are a country that understands the critical importance to science of international collaboration at a time when almost half of our most productive science research involves international collaboration with researchers outside this country.

Chair

On those particular points, one of the more disturbing pieces of evidence we have had—I am sure you will have had the same message—is that some scientists in the UK who are already part of consortia are being asked to leave consortia or being made to feel unwelcome because some in Europe have received the message that we either do not want to be part of Horizon 2020 or want to leave. What message would you send to those who are experiencing that at the moment?

Jo Johnson

The first thing is to underscore that we are a warm and welcoming country, and we want the brightest and best scientists and researchers to feel that they can do great science in the UK and will have a first‑class experience when they come to live and work here. We want to put in place as a Government a comprehensive communications strategy to send out those kinds of messages around the world—that we are more open and outward-looking than ever before, and that we want to forge international collaborations with European partners and countries beyond the European Union, now more than ever. That is part of it, sending out all the right sorts of messages; Brexit does not mean that we are becoming insular and inward-looking in any way, but, on the contrary, we are going to be more outward-looking, more open and more globally minded than ever before.

Chair

And we will seek to be part of Horizon 2020.

Jo Johnson

I am sorry, I did not touch on your point about discrimination against UK institutions. We have been very clear that there should be no discrimination against UK institutions, soft or hard, and we have made representations to the European Commissioner for science and innovation, Carlos Moedas, and sought his reassurances, which he has provided in his own statements to that effect. At our request he put out a statement—at his own initiative, as well—reassuring UK researchers that their validity for Horizon 2020 applications remains unchanged. You mentioned some anecdotal examples of institutions who say other European institutions are unwilling to partner with them. We are extremely concerned at these anecdotal reports and have asked institutions to provide us with concrete evidence where this is happening, and we have set up in the Department a unit that is ready to receive such evidence. We have an email address to which any examples of that sort can be sent—research@bis.gsi.gov.uk. We welcome any hard evidence so that we can take appropriate steps. I will be speaking to Commissioner Moedas again tomorrow to update him on the mood in the UK science community and how it feels things are going. We understand the concern, but my message is that we must realise that, as we stand today, our rights and obligations as full members of the European Union remain unchanged. We are fully able to bid, and to lead bids, for Horizon 2020 programmes, and we must feel confident in doing so.

Chair

That is reassuring and helpful. Can I ask a couple of process questions before coming to colleagues? Unlike your predecessors, David Willetts and Greg Clark, you are not a member of the Cabinet. How confident are you that in the midst of the scale of change that we are undergoing—trade negotiations, immigration and so on—the needs of science, research and innovation will figure high enough up the priority list of the Government’s exit negotiation strategies? Do you think that there needs to be a louder voice? Do you think that a figure such as yourself needs to be sitting at the Cabinet table, Minister?

Jo Johnson

There are lots of friends of science who sit around the Cabinet table, and foremost among them are the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department in which I work as a Minister—Sajid Javid is a great friend of science and has contributed a huge amount to the successful protection of the science ring-fence—and, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who over successive fiscal events has protected science at a time of significant savings across the rest of public expenditure. It is unfair to say that the voice of science is unrepresented at the Cabinet table. It fully is, and that is why we have had successful outcomes for science in successive spending rounds.

Chair

Can I also ask about cross‑departmental working? Obviously, there are a number of different work streams going on to do with the exit negotiations. What interaction have you had so far with Oliver Letwin, and how is Sir Mark Walport fitting into that work stream?

Jo Johnson

I was discussing these issues with Oliver Letwin just yesterday afternoon. He is, as you would expect, fully across them. This is one of the most important aspects of our relationship with the European Union. It is the third biggest source of funds that the UK receives from the European Union after the common agricultural policy and some regional structural funds, so it is extremely significant, and Oliver Letwin is very focused on every aspect of the detail of it, as you would expect. Sir Mark Walport and I are also discussing this on a regular basis; he and I are in close touch.

Chair

What advice has he given you?

Jo Johnson

The advice we receive from the sector is much the same as the advice that Sir Mark is offering. We are aware of the need to move swiftly to provide additional clarification, and we are working closely with colleagues across Government to do that as soon as we can. As you know, we have a new Prime Minister starting in position later this afternoon. That is an important step towards our being in a position to provide additional reassurances on top of the ones we have already been able to give over the last two and a half weeks.

Chair

George Freeman has established the UK EU steering group on life sciences and Brexit. I am trying to understand how that fits in with the work you are doing at BIS. Could you explain the interactions—why life sciences are being treated separately and how you are interacting?

Jo Johnson

It is an extremely helpful initiative that is reporting, through DH, to Jeremy Hunt. The whole of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is focused on the broad gamut of ramifications of the referendum decision. The entire Department is effectively a taskforce right now, thinking through all aspects of the decision.

Graham Stringer

I have one follow‑up question, if I may. Since you asked for evidence about the anecdotal discrimination, have you had any hard evidence, and, if you have, can you tell the Committee what it is?

Jo Johnson

We have had some emails with descriptions of behaviours that suggest we need to pay great attention to how this evolves over coming weeks. I cannot give you an exact number of communications at this time—I do not have those figures in front of me—but the channels of communication are open. The sector knows that I have been inviting evidence. We have an email inbox, which I have made public, and it is being monitored closely—I am receiving updates from the team—and I am in regular discussions with Commissioner Moedas to alert him to any hard evidence, any structural signs of discrimination, that we might become aware of.

Graham Stringer

But is that hard evidence there?

Jo Johnson

We have seen a lot of anecdotal evidence at the moment. I am still waiting for hard examples of institutions being concretely blocked, but I am not saying it is not happening. Far from it. I just want to see further examples.

Graham Stringer

Would you make it public if you found hard evidence?

Jo Johnson

It would depend on the terms on which any information was given to me.

Carol Monaghan

At the moment there is a lot of anxiety within the scientific community, and some of what you have said today is very reassuring, as was what you said in your Wellcome Trust speech, when you said, “We remain fully open to scientists and researchers from across the EU.” Although all these words are reassuring, you mentioned a strategy in response to the Chair’s questions. Is this strategy really in place? Is it a written strategy? How are we going to reassure the scientific community beyond simple rhetoric?

Jo Johnson

Yes, we are putting in place a comprehensive communications strategy to reassure the science community that, as I was saying in my response to the Chair, we remain confident, open and outward-looking, and committed to keeping Britain at the forefront of science around the world. We are reassuring our European partners that our rights and obligations to them and to EU nationals coming to the UK remain unchanged as we stand today, as we are still full members of the European Union, and we want to make sure that people feel confident in welcoming EU students to their institutions and feel confident in bidding to Horizon 2020 programmes as institutions.

Carol Monaghan

In terms of students, maybe the institutions feel confident in welcoming them, but what signals are we giving to potential or current EU students just now? We had Professor Sir Ian Diamond here last week giving evidence to the Committee, and he said that Aberdeen University had made a commitment to current EU students that nothing would change as a result of Brexit and had actually extended that to students entering Aberdeen in the academic year 2016‑17. As the UK, should we be making very bold statements like that to encourage European students still to come to our institutions?

Jo Johnson

Yes, and we have started that process with a statement that I put out almost immediately after the referendum, on Tuesday. In fact, the first statement I made was on the Monday after the referendum, which we then followed up with a second statement on the Tuesday after the referendum. We were out of the traps extremely early, providing initial reassurance to the sector. We know it is not job done and that this is work we must continue to focus on extremely carefully in the days and weeks ahead. That is what I mean by a comprehensive communications strategy. It is not enough just to put out a couple of initial statements. We realise we have to keep going and make sure that we continually reinforce the positive messages that we have started sending out, but we have put out initial statements about the continuing eligibility of EU nationals for our student loan system, for example, for the academic year 2016‑17. We realise there are outstanding questions about 2017-18 and the years after. We are moving as rapidly as we can within Government to try to get further clarification on those questions. You will appreciate that we do not yet have the new Prime Minister in place and it would be inappropriate for me to make commitments before she has even crossed the threshold of No. 10.

Carol Monaghan

Potential EU students are already looking at the UK as a place to study, or are maybe not looking at the UK, because, although they know that in 2016‑17 they should be all right, what happens in 2017‑18? Could their status change during their course of study? There is a lot of anxiety within the sector about how we continue to attract EU students if their status may change.

Jo Johnson

I acknowledge that and I appreciate it, and that is why we are working as rapidly as we can across Government to provide the additional reassurance that is required. We acknowledge that it is required and we know what questions are in need of immediate answers. We have now made progress, as we will in the coming hours, in the sense that we have a new Prime Minister known. Theresa May will be in place shortly. We have more capacity to start getting decisions made than we had in the interregnum period, and that is helpful and productive, but I cannot give you assurances today before Theresa May has even taken office.

Carol Monaghan

Could I ask you about EU researchers working in universities? The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, has been very clear. Her language left no room for doubt: “You are welcome; we need you; we want you; please stay; you are part of our community.” The language coming from the UK Government has not been as strong as that, and certainly when we see the new Prime Minister saying, “We still need to negotiate,” that leaves a lot of EU researchers in a very difficult situation. Is the strategy going to include EU nationals who are working in research in our universities?

Jo Johnson

Yes. As we stand today, nothing has changed in their status. That is the point that the Prime Minister has emphasised on a number of occasions. The circumstances of British citizens living in the EU and European citizens living here has not changed as we stand today, and that includes people working in and studying at our universities. We understand that there will be concerns about what the status of these people will be after any Brexit—

Carol Monaghan

But that is the concern, and although you say, “As we stand, nothing has changed,” for these researchers everything has changed and they do not know whether they should commit to remaining in a UK university or go elsewhere.

Jo Johnson

I understand that uncertainty, but I cannot make immigration policy before this Committee on the hoof. There is a cross‑government process that will start once the new Prime Minister is in office and has formed a clear sense of what her negotiating priorities are going to be, taking into account the broad spectrum of interests that are at stake in our new relationship with the European Union.

Carol Monaghan

I suppose we are asking that you make the case for those EU researchers who are really valuable in the universities.

Jo Johnson

What is really important is that the Committee channels effectively the voice of the science and research community to Government, as it is doing very well. Your work is vitally important. It is also critical that the science and research community is at the heart of the negotiations that will start, but the first, prior, step is making sure that Government fully appreciate all the different interests and issues that affect the science and university sector so that we do not undersell ourselves, and that we understand what is at stake for universities and researchers.

Chris Green

In the run-up to the referendum, there were all kinds of discussions of the model the UK needs, post-Brexit, with the rest of the European Union. There were many different models, and it would offer some certainty if you could give an indication of which model you think would be best for the UK’s R and D. Would it be the Swiss model, the Norwegian model or perhaps—as I think was mentioned—the Albanian model? What do you think would be best, or should we negotiate our own bespoke relationship?

Jo Johnson

It would be premature for me to alight on a particular structure, because we are at an early stage today. We do not even have a new Prime Minister in place yet. All these issues will be considered in the round. Obviously, science is an extremely important national interest but there are many others that will be taken into account in determining our answers to these questions. There is a spectrum of relationships in the Horizon 2020 programme, as you said. There are associated statuses, there are third-country statuses and there are some hybrids in between, such as Switzerland, which is a temporary partial associated member. Britain brings a lot that is very distinctive to the table. We are a very big science power, we are a very big economy, but it is not for me now to define before this Committee what our eventual negotiating position might be, because it is going to take us some time to get to that answer.

Chris Green

For associate countries such as Norway and Switzerland, there is not a formal role in deciding the EU’s priorities for its framework programme funding. We have taken evidence that it is incredibly important for UK science that we have an enhanced role and that we ought to be able to have an input in determining the funding programme. Surely we should be seeking an enhanced relationship.

Jo Johnson

It is something that the science community can make a strong argument for, and Government will certainly listen very carefully to all the arguments as they shape their overall approach to the negotiation that will start in months to come. The science community has an important role to play in putting forward its view about the kind of relationship that it thinks would be most to the advantage of science in this country.

Chris Green

In terms of negotiating that relationship, the president of the Swiss national research council suggested that the Swiss did not go in with “the sin of arrogance”, or being too proud in terms of the quality of Swiss science. Perhaps we should go in with a very humble attitude to the EU, or perhaps we should blow our trumpet a little more. We have some fantastic universities and institutes, and we should be looking to use that fact to get a really good deal for the UK.

Jo Johnson

Our science speaks for itself. It is world class by almost any measure and we are an attractive partner, but of course it is very important to enter all negotiations with a constructive approach.

Victoria Borwick

The Higher Education and Research Bill is working its way through Parliament. Is pressing ahead with that sensible in the context of the uncertainty caused by the referendum result? Is there a possibility of separating parts of the Bill so that the bits that are easier can be carried through, perhaps leaving the teaching element for later? Could you give us your views on that, please?

Jo Johnson

The Prime Minister was very clear in his speech on Friday 24 June that the Government have many manifesto commitments to deliver. The Higher Education and Research Bill delivers a number of them, and the legislative programme that was laid out in the Queen’s Speech on 17 May carries on. The Higher Education and Research Bill was introduced in Parliament on 19 May. We await its Second Reading, but it will go forward through the Houses of Parliament. It is now more important than ever that we make rapid progress with the Bill. On the research side, it is becoming increasingly obvious across the community that we need a strong and coherent voice for science, both across Europe and across the world, as we seek to forge greater international collaboration. We also need a stronger voice to Government so that all the interests and issues that affect the science community are well represented to Government. On the HE side, similarly, we see greater need to move towards a strengthened regulatory framework. At the moment, we have a very fragmented regulatory framework that leaves publicly funded institutions regulated by HEFCE, but a very large universe of private providers regulated by the Department. There is a need to strengthen the regulatory system to promote and drive up quality throughout our system.

Victoria Borwick

That is very helpful. How is the creation of UKRI going to help the science community’s ability to influence the debate in our relationship with the EU?

Jo Johnson

UKRI, when it is fully in existence, will be a powerful voice for British science and will help us forge the kinds of international partnerships that we will be seeking all the more in a post-Brexit world. The arrival of John Kingman as the shadow chair of UKRI has been broadly welcomed around the science and research community. He is already active in that role and is meeting many stakeholders. He was in Swindon last week visiting the research councils and Innovate UK. He has been in Bristol meeting the research team at HEFCE. He is already playing a very powerful galvanising role, which illustrates the contribution that UKRI will make in years to come.

Victoria Borwick

What contingency planning has gone on in BIS? How are people planning and over what timescales? What contingency planning is going on for a post-Brexit world?

Jo Johnson

It is no longer a contingency; it has happened and we are moving rapidly, as you can see by the early statements that the Department and I were putting out within a very short period after the referendum result. We are moving at pace as a Department. We are fully focused on trying to provide as much reassurance as we can to the various communities with issues at stake. We are conscious of the need for speed and we are glad that we have now shortened the process by which we have a new Prime Minister so that we can start getting more decisions taken as rapidly as possible.

Victoria Borwick

If there was an early general election, would there be an impact on the status of UKRI and the Bill generally?

Jo Johnson

I note that all the candidates for the Conservative leadership ruled out an early election and that the new leader of the Conservative party has also committed to the next election taking place, as planned through the Fixed‑term Parliaments Act, in 2020.

Dr Mathias

We have heard, and I think you concur, that the main concern is about people, following Brexit, but I am also interested in whether the Government have undertaken any research about the impact of EU research funds going and whether it affects different areas of the country at different universities.

Jo Johnson

It is early days for us to have that sort of analysis yet. It has only been two weeks since the referendum decision came out. We have not seen any significant shifts of the kind you describe, but it is far too early for us to come to that form of judgment.

Dr Tania Mathias

BIS does not have that information or access to—

Jo Johnson

Do you mean about post-referendum shifts in funding?

Dr Mathias

With the European research funds they are most involved with now, which areas are most dependent?

Jo Johnson

We can certainly see that. We know who the recipients of EU research funding are, clearly, and our institutions do tremendously well from it. The top four recipients are UK universities—London, Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial—so we know where significant flows of money are going. We know where the risks of any shortfall might lie.

Dr Mathias

We know that information, but the risk analysis has not been done yet.

Jo Johnson

We know who receives EU research funding, where it goes and which institutions receive it. What I was saying has not been done is analysis of any post-referendum changes in funding flows, because we have not seen any post-referendum changes in funding flows.

Dr Mathias

What statements do you think the Government should be making in the short term to reassure scientists and investors?

Jo Johnson

The statements that the EU Commission has put out have been helpful. They need constant reiteration, and I would welcome further such statements from the Commission. As I said, I will be speaking to Commissioner Moedas tomorrow. I am looking forward to that and I will be with him again, all things being well, in Manchester later in the month. I have a very close dialogue with him on these matters. BIS, as a Department, will continue to put out the message that we remain full members of the European Union, that our right to participate fully in Horizon 2020 programmes remains unchanged and that we want EU institutions and universities around the EU to recognise that we are very committed to international collaborations with EU institutions and those from all around the world.

Chair

We have covered a bit about EU nationals and British nationals, and I understand that you are not able to make immigration policy before the Committee. I understand the limitations. Nevertheless, could I ask you a little about your preferences? Clearly, in whatever model is negotiated with the EU, if unrestricted free movement is off the agenda, what sort of system do you think would be optimal for EU scientists, researchers and students still coming here? What do you think we need to be fighting for?

Jo Johnson

The science and research community needs to make a strong argument for the kind of mobility it wants to see and then that can be taken into account by the team at the centre that will be putting in place a comprehensive negotiating strategy. My personal preferences are neither here nor there really. I want to make sure that I understand fully the kind of needs that the science community sees, what kind of mobility is most beneficial and how we can best make sure that the negotiating team takes those interests into account when forging its position.

Chair

I suppose I am asking you what you see at this point as the priorities that have been put forward to you. What is your professional judgment on what the priorities would be? If we are going to end up with restrictions on free movement for unskilled workers, do you see scope for having a system that could explicitly favour scientists and researchers, for example?

Jo Johnson

You are tempting me to get involved in the detail of our future immigration policy, which would be very unwise. The Home Secretary has a tremendous amount of expertise in immigration policy, and I do not think she would appreciate me freelancing on the morning of her arrival in No. 10.

Chair

This is true; nevertheless, we are trying to understand how we can reassure some of our scientists and universities about what case they should be making. Do you think that the UK could meet its needs for access to leading researchers and scientists through the current visa schemes being applied to people from EU countries in the same way, or would existing visa schemes be sufficient to provide enough?

Jo Johnson

Again, I am sorry to disappoint you. I do not want to get involved in the detail because these are very complicated questions. The broad message that I want to send today is that we must and will remain confident, open, outward-looking and welcoming, and that we want to attract brilliant people to our institutions, as we always have done, and we have every intention as a Government of continuing to do that.

Chair

Thank you very much.

Derek Thomas

This may be an easier question for you, Minister. The UK currently hosts a number of European research facilities that have an ability to influence the direction of science and innovation funding in Europe. How confident can you be that we can secure the future of these sites in the UK? Is it inevitable that some may go back to European member states?

Jo Johnson

These are issues that will need to be thrashed out as part of the bigger package of discussions that look at how exactly our new relationship works in detail. I cannot pre-empt those discussions, but they are important facilities and they have done very good and productive science over a very considerable period of time. It has been a pleasure in this job to have visited a number of them. Recently, I was at the JET—Torus—facility at Culham, for example. It is part of the ITER programme and does useful work, but its exact future status is something that is going to have to be considered as part of the bigger package of negotiations.

Derek Thomas

Can you feasibly see a place where these established and important institutions or sites would relocate? Surely we would be able to find a way to make it work so that they can stay.

Jo Johnson

They provide useful work, as they have done over a long period of time, and they are doing great science, but I cannot pre-empt the exact shape of our future relationship with respect to science and the European Union as we stand today, although we obviously recognise the importance of these facilities.

Derek Thomas

That is fine. Thank you very much.

Chris Green

Several universities have secured loans from the European Investment Bank. Are you aware of any loans to UK universities that are currently under consideration or under threat due to Brexit?

Jo Johnson

We are a big shareholder in the European Investment Bank; I think we have a 16% participation in it. We see no reason to imagine that is going to change. It certainly has not changed in the short term as a result of the referendum decision on 23 June, and we continue to expect to play a full role in the EIB.

Chris Green

What steps could be taken to ensure that the UK continues to have access to and benefit from EIB loans on favourable terms? Would we need to join the European Free Trade Association?

Jo Johnson

Again, that is a question that will be settled as part of the broader negotiation about our future relationship with the European Union.

Chris Green

Is there any scope for the British Business Bank perhaps to extend its remit to include universities? Do you have any view on that?

Jo Johnson

It is an interesting suggestion and one I am sure the team will take away and have a look at.

Chair

The last area, which we looked at a bit before the referendum, is regulation—the harmonisation of regulation and the benefit it has been to UK science previously, and how UK science will go forward and whether regulation will need to be mirrored. Do you have any idea which EU regulations will need to be reviewed first to ensure that UK science is well supported, and can you give us a sense of what will be the process for reviewing EU regulations, in terms of science and innovation—not generally?

Jo Johnson

As we stand today, we are full members of the European research area and we benefit from that. Our future relationship to the European research area is something that will be considered in the round as part of our broader relationship to the rest of the European Union.

Chair

In evidence last week, for example, the Wellcome Trust pointed with concern to the genomics institute in East Anglia saying that they are dependent on access to pan-European data and they are particularly concerned that having just got through negotiations for the GDPR we do not have a similar domestic regulation yet because we have not reached that far. Are we going to have a domestic regulation, are we going to mirror it, will it be substantially different, and will we still have access to that data, and so on? It will not only have significant impact on that institute, but a similar situation could be replicated in a number of different sectors. I am not asking you to answer on the genomics institute question, but more on the principle of what analysis is being done on the impact of the need to mirror regulation domestically in order to make sure that our institutes and our scientific sectors have the access and the regulatory back‑up that they need.

Jo Johnson

Yes. These are the kinds of questions that we are analysing carefully in the Department at the moment. We are aware that these are the sorts of issues that we are going to have to have comprehensive answers to in the weeks ahead.

Chair

Do you think there is going to be potential opportunity for the sector to be released from burdensome regulation that we wish we were not involved in, and now all of a sudden we have the yoke lifted from our shoulders? Is that an unrealistic hope?

Jo Johnson

We need to look at what kind of relationship we are going to have to the rest of the European Union before we can give a clear picture about the regulatory systems we will continue and those that we might be able to change and adapt. They will all form part of a very detailed piece of work, which will be undertaken within the Department and across Government over the weeks and months to come.

Chair

Minister, we share your view that science is a central national interest, but we also think that you have been an outstanding Minister for Science, so we very much hope you are going to stick around and will be back giving us evidence if not on this issue then something very similar in the autumn. Can I plead with you to make the case within Government not only that issues such as continuing access to Horizon 2020 and collaboration are maintained, and that the right kind of immigration system, which benefits and favours our science and higher education sectors, is in place, but that the science and innovation community is at the heart of the exit negotiations, as you have been saying is important, because that will be make or break for our knowledge economy going forward? Thank you for the work you have already done in reassuring the community. We are very grateful to you for coming before us so quickly. Thank you very much, Minister.

Jo Johnson

Thank you very much. Oral evidence: Leaving the EU: implications and opportunities for science and research, HC 502 21