It would have fairly significant implications, which we have been flagging up for some time. There has been a fair amount of recent publicity about horizon 2020 in respect of the reliance of Scottish universities on that funding. It can vary from institution to institution but on average it makes up about 10 per cent of their total research income, so that would be a big collapse. The various research institutes that are not part of the universities structure are similarly dependent on access to horizon 2020, and we already have information that research proposals that involve a UK—or, in our case, a Scottish—component are just not getting off the ground because, from an external perspective, it will cause an issue, so those proposals are not getting anywhere.
The horizon 2020 funding is particularly important to Scotland; because of the really good performance of our research institutes and bodies, we tend to get more income from it. It works out at €55 per capita in Scotland compared with the UK average of €40 per capita, so, as you can see, the difference is quite distinct. It is an important consideration. Even if replacement funding were, in some way, to be agreed, it is still the case that, at the moment, we get a disproportionately higher level of funding. Is that going to be agreed? If not, we will see a drop, and that is a big concern.
There is a slightly more indirect risk that the loss of EU funding will take people out of networks, and I have already given some examples of joint funding projects with a Scottish or, indeed, UK component just not going ahead. As a result, we are losing the network of research, which, after all, is now undertaken across boundaries. Indeed, it is very rare for it to take place entirely in one institution in one country—you are always going to have partners. That, too, is a big concern.
There are issues with other bits of funding. Fergus Ewing has talked about the importance of the CAP to both portfolios, and that is indeed the case. For instance, it funds agri-environment schemes; that is not necessarily about research but about practical schemes on the ground, which are really important to us.
With regard to European regional development funding, we should bear in mind that around £41.6 million goes to Scottish Natural Heritage for the green infrastructure strategic intervention programme and around £26.4 million goes to Zero Waste Scotland to support resource efficiency and the circular economy. It all begins to add up across a number of programmes and to impact on a number of areas, and it will be a considerable loss to Scotland if no real guarantees are made.
That said, there are some guarantees. As I understand it, they are included in the 2014 to 2020 EU budget plan, but once you get past that, you are into more of a no man’s land with regard to where things might go. Again, as I understand it, the UK Government has flagged up a shared prosperity fund, and I think that a lot of this is meant to be brought under that umbrella. However, despite reassurances that devolved Administrations would be involved in the development of that fund, that has not happened thus far. We really do not yet know what that all means, what the calculations will be and what the fund will cover, but, as I indicated at the start of my response, there needs to be a recognition that Scotland punches well above its weight when it comes to accessing funding. It is not just about getting a share of that fund; the question is whether we will continue to get the share that we have been managing to get up to now.