Education and Skills Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Official Report 325KB pdf

EU Reporter

The next item on the agenda is consideration of paper 3, which is from the committee’s European Union reporter, Gillian Martin. The paper discusses the implications of Brexit for horizon 2020 innovation and research funding. I understand that Gillian Martin wants to say a few words.

I have brought the paper before the committee in my role as the committee’s European Union reporter. I bring to members’ attention an issue relating to the EU horizon 2020 programme, which is a flagship programme that funds research and innovation projects in the EU. Between 2007 and 2014, Scottish organisations secured €572 million in funds. Since January 2014, we have been awarded more than €110 million. The next date for applications to the programme is December 2017.

As the reporter, I am concerned by the comment of the EU Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, any Scottish university that is successful in December

“will cease to be eligible to receive EU funding ... or be required to leave the project”.

That brings a great deal of uncertainty to an important source of research funds. Yesterday, the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee looked at statistics showing the massive economic impact of having a Scottish research fellow involved in those projects.

I hope that fellow members of the committee will agree that we need to get more information on the issue from our university sector and then perhaps make appropriate representations on a cross-party basis to both Governments. I am open to advice from the committee on what steps to take, and I have set out my thoughts in the paper that members have.

Thank you for the paper. I see the recommendations on page 3. Does anybody have any comments on the recommendations?

I thank Gillian Martin for raising those issues. A large part of the University of Edinburgh is in my constituency, and those issues are of huge importance to that institution and all higher education institutions across Scotland.

I do not mean to be picky, but I would quite like us to make the representations as a committee. It is obvious that we are cross-party, and we should be doing that as something that we have agreed as a committee. In a sense, the fact that we are looking at the issues as part of the committee’s responsibilities—not on a party basis—might carry more weight. Thank you for the report.

Are we happy to accept the recommendations that Gillian Martin has made on page 3 of her paper, as well as the change that Johann Lamont has suggested?

Members indicated agreement.