UK in a changing Europe has for years produced high quality research on the UK’s links with the EU. Yet it now faces closure because of Economic and Social Research Council grant cuts.

Some 66 of us Parliamentarians (38 MPs and 28 peers) have signed a cross-party letter urging UK Research and Innovation to reconsider their decision.

Anand Menon and his team provide impartial, timely, accessible research that is invaluable to Parliamentarians, the media and the general public.

That’s why Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Green, SDLP, Alliance and independent MPs and peers have all signed this letter.

(Full letter text at the bottom of the article)

Text of the letter: 

 

Stian Westlake

Executive Chair of the ESRC

Caxton House

Tothill Street

SW1H 9NA

 

17 December 2024

Dear Stian,

 

We write to express concern that ‘UK In A Changing Europe’ (UKICE) is set to lose its funding from ESRC in April 2025.

 

UKICE has established itself as the leading research institute on UK-EU policy in the post-Brexit age.

 

That’s because Brexit is indeed a process, not merely an event. And although the issue of the UK’s membership of the European Union was settled by the referendum of 2016, and confirmed in 2020 when it finally formally exited, there are still plenty of areas of public policy of ongoing interest.

 

As Parliamentarians, many of us still rely on UKICE for key information, not least its Divergence Tracker, used by MPs, peers and civil servants as the only source on this key area of UK-EU comparison.

 

The Brexit archive that the research institute holds is also invaluable as a historical record. And it has also done cutting edge research on the economics and politics of immigration more broadly.

 

UKICE’s wide-ranging work is not just reliable and well informed, it also produces reports that are clear and accessible, making the research reachable, which is surely the whole point of state-funded social science research.

 

In terms of impact, it has a proud record of backing projects that use social science insights to inform important aspects of policy, practice or the public debate.

 

Of course, we understand the argument that the ESRC is worried that if it continues to fund UKICE it may no longer be able to fund newer and different kinds of research. That anxiety will be heightened given uncertainty over future budget settlements.

 

Yet although no academic body should expect, let alone receive, open ended funding, there are some other bodies such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies that have been funded by the ESRC over the long term.

 

It’s notable that UKICE has given enormous profile to social science and social scientists. This is quite apart from being extremely useful to a number of non-academic groups (which itself boosts the reputation of academic social science).

 

Its clear successes in terms of reach and accessibility, together with the fact that its work is becoming more rather than less salient, make a powerful case for some extra years of funding, even if on a different scale than in the past.

 

The real danger for the ESRC of the decision to pull funding is that it will be seen as a de-prioritisation of impact-based work.

 

The justification for ending the funding to UKICE appears to be that “someone else should have a turn”, regardless of the excellence of a currently funded institution. We would politely suggest that that is not a sensible way to approach funding decisions. As a country, we don’t pull funding from our excellent vaccine research, for example, on the grounds that we’re already good at it. And a superb social science research centre like UKICE deserves continued support.

 

Any “reset” of relations with the EU proves that UKICE’s work is more needed than ever, providing independent studies and a healthy sense of challenge of claims by all sides.

 

Furthermore, few can doubt the quality of the work done by UKICE. An ESRC assessment found it “was largely successful in meeting its stated aims and objectives”.

 

Notwithstanding the current financial uncertainty, we would urge the ESRC to reconsider its decision and instead offer a renewed but possibly lower level of funding to ensure the continued operation of the website and the ability to retain some key staff.

 

We do hope the ESRC will have a re-think to allow UKICE to continue to provide robust, timely research to a wide range of users with differing views and perspectives.

 

We are sending a copy of this letter to Ottoline Leyser, UKRI Chief Exec, and Andrew Mackenzie, UKRI chair.

 

Yours sincerely,

Richard Baker MP

Antonia Bance MP

Johanna Baxter MP

Rachel Blake MP

Phil Brickell MP

Liam Byrne MP

Ellie Chowns MP

Ben Coleman MP

Andrew Cooper MP

Torcuil Crichton MP

Graeme Downie MP

Neil Duncan-Jordan MP

Colum Eastwood MP

Sorcha Eastwood MP

Patricia Ferguson MP

Allison Gardner MP

Stephen Gethins MP

Rachel Gilmour MP

Wera Hobhouse MP

Leigh Ingham MP

Lillian Jones MP

Laura Kryke-Smith MP

Uma Kumaran MP

Andrew Lewin MP

John McDonnell MP

Abtisam Mohamed MP

Layla Moran MP

James Naish MP

Joe Powell MP

Yasmin Qureshi MP

Steve Race MP

Andrew Ranger MP

Alex Sobel MP

Laurence Turner MP

Valerie Vaz MP

Caroline Voaden MP

Paul Waugh MP

Sean Woodcock MP

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

Baroness Brown of Cambridge

Lord Dholakia

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Baroness Fox of Buckley

Baroness Goudie of Roundwood

Baroness Hamwee

Baroness Hazarika

Baroness Janke

Lord Jay of Ewelme

Baroness Keeley

Lord Kinnock

Lord Lansley

Lord Liddle

Baroness Ludford

Lord McNally

Lord Monks

Baroness Morris of Yardley

Baroness Prashar

Lord Rennard

Baroness Ritchie of

Downpatrick

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Lord Russell of Liverpool

Baroness Scott of Needham Market

Lord Storey

Lord Watson of Wyre Forest

Duke of Wellington