Freeman: UK will never be science superpower behind visa paywall

There was a surprise epilogue to George Freeman’s second stint as the UK’s science minister when, a week after he stepped down, the government announced a £250 million mid-career fellowship scheme.

Those who heard the Mid Norfolk MP repeatedly stress the need for “really bold fellowships” to rival the generous awards from Germany’s Max Planck Institutes will have few doubts about where the impetus for the Royal Society Faraday Discovery Fellowships, worth up to £8 million each, came from.

However, Mr Freeman’s ambition to attract the world’s best global scientific talent took a step back a week later when the new home secretary, James Cleverly, announced plans to raise the minimum salary needed to get a skilled worker visa to £38,700 – above the typical starting salary of a UK postdoc, potentially jeopardising a much-travelled route for early career researchers coming to Britain.

Such twists and turns were nothing new to Mr Freeman, whose two years as minister saw a few setbacks as well as big policy wins – not least the UK finally agreeing to rejoin the Horizon Europe research programme.

Speaking to Times Higher Education, Mr Freeman said he was “really worried by the toughening of barriers on legitimate student and research migration”, adding that he was concerned about the message that this would send to potential postdocs mulling moves to the UK. According to a Royal Society briefing, the cost of applying to the UK’s bespoke Global Talent visa scheme for scientists is several times higher than competitor nations.

“We will never be a science superpower behind a visa paywall,” said Mr Freeman, who has previously voiced concerns about how rising immigration fees are hampering the UK’s ability to attract world-class research talent.

“That’s one of the tragic things about the current migration discussion – it shuts down the debate about how you can attract those who will help with our scientific and innovation ambitions.”

Additional barriers to recruiting international PhD and postdoctoral researchers, including a hefty NHS surcharge, could see the UK lose out on talent that might create and lead billion-pound industries, continued Mr Freeman.

“Higher education is one of our great exports, and some of our greatest engineers and scientists have arrived here as students,” he said. “Look at Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, whose parents came here as asylum seekers fleeing Nazi persecution. Or Hermann Hauser, the only person in Britain who has founded seven companies each worth more than £1 billion. He came to Cambridge as a student in the 1970s and loved it so much he stayed. It would be madness to stop these kinds of entrepreneurial scientific minds from coming here.”

While Mr Freeman’s former department was lobbying for science exemptions from the Home Office income thresholds, a wider rethink on skilled migration was needed, Mr Freeman suggested.

“We have to set out the sort of people who we need and make it attractive for them to come here. These people will not make these decisions in isolation, either – they have partners and families who they may want to bring with them. We need a clear plan for how we can attract world-class talent,” he said.

Securing the UK’s membership of Horizon will certainly help with this task, with Mr Freeman citing his role in reaching September’s deal after two years of political deadlock as one of his proudest achievements in office.

As someone who had been a “loud Remainer” before the 2016 Brexit referendum, Mr Freeman said he had had to tread a difficult line when arguing to stay part of the European Union research scheme. “During 2022, it was pretty lonely fighting that battle,” recalled Mr Freeman.

“By 2023, it became easier for me to argue for Horizon because our research base was so obviously suffering and international business confidence was clearly damaged,” he continued, adding that the forthcoming general election helped to sway opinion. “I argued that setting up [Horizon alternative] Pioneer might be possible if we were starting a five-year term but, going into what is likely to be an election year, if we didn’t have a deal it would become politically damaging and we wouldn’t have time to get any economic or political benefit from it.”

Those who assumed that the Horizon deal was inevitable were mistaken, he added. “There was definitely a serious risk that we might not go for Horizon. Rishi Sunak, who was then chancellor, had been quite concerned – understandably – about the £2 billion gap in funding, arising from our seven-year funding profile, which meant we would put in £14 billion and get back £12 billion. Not unreasonably, given the post-pandemic public finance crisis, he asked, ‘In what world is this a good deal?’ There were also [Brexit] hawks in the Cabinet who saw those billions as a solution to funding problems elsewhere.”

While a deal was eventually agreed, Mr Freeman said, he felt it could have happened sooner.

“My frustration was that we could have launched parts of Pioneer in the spring of 2022, for example, getting our big fellowships set up. The EU would have seen that, with every month that passed, there would be less money for Horizon, which would have helped focus minds in Brussels.”

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com