 The next item of business is a debate on motion 1468 in the name of Richard Lochhead on safeguarding Scotland's international research collaborations and reputation for scientific excellence from the threat of Brexit. That's a mouthful. I call on Richard Lochhead to speak to and move the motion. Minister, 13 minutes are thereabouts. We have a little time in hand for interventions and so on. Yesterday, I visited Queen Margaret University where I was given a tour by the wonderful principal, Petra Vend. Petra has been at the helm for nine years and recently announced that she will be standing down next summer, so I want to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the enormous contribution she has made and continues to make to higher education in Scotland. Petra is German. During my tour, I was struck by the international character of the university. I visited a laboratory where I met two academics who were there to show me around. The senior research fellow was from the Netherlands. The PhD student was Greek. Later on, I had a presentation ahead of student services. He is Bulgarian. 15 per cent of the students at Queen Margaret are EU nationals and around 9 per cent of the staff are EU nationals. Across Scotland's universities, colleges and research institutions, students and staff from the EU are making an enormous contribution to Scotland and our global reputation for excellence. Many institutions benefit greatly from EU membership, with 19 per cent of the Aberdeen university students alone being EU nationals. As a result of Brexit, during my various visits, I am hearing similar messages everywhere I go. I am hearing universities hiring immigration lawyers, about staff in tears, about staff and students feeling less welcome, uncertain, insecure. I am hearing about talented and valued staff contemplating leaving Scotland and the UK. Following the UK's decision to leave the EU, I am hearing everywhere about the short and long-term threat that Brexit poses to Scotland's research base, funding, international standing, our influence, reputation for science, research and innovation and educational excellence that one principle rightly describes to me as beyond world class. I think that all of this damage is self-inflicted. No wonder the principle of Glasgow University Professor Sir Anthony Muscatelli said that a hard Brexit would represent the most unhinged example of national self-sabotage in living memory. Scotland's story, and especially that of our universities, has been shaped by our close relationship with Europe. Today, our research institutions increasingly work together to increase impact, but we have always recognised that co-operation within Scotland and the UK alone has never been enough a real success. World-leading success comes from reaching out beyond our borders across the globe and across Europe to add value to research endeavors in Scotland. In Scotland's building on a great history here, going back centuries with early links to Europe, our first universities were set up in the 15th century, with St Andrew's, Glasgow and Aberdeen all founded through papal bulls giving them the seal of approval to award degrees. And because of the wars of independence with England, Scottish students had until then studied in continental Europe. Europe influenced Scotland and Scotland influenced Europe and the world. The Scottish Enlightenment figures of David Hume, Adam Smith and James Hutton changed their way of thinking about the world and our economy. The first industrial revolution is unthinkable without James Watt's steam engine, bringing science and invention together with industry and engineering. Scientists and researchers in Scotland continue to shape society now, leading also in aspects of the fourth industrial revolution, focused on linking our cyber and our physical worlds, for instance. But that is not the only area of impact. Our excellent research base in Scotland, which is comprised of universities, research institutes and public research bodies, as well as third and private sector activity, is having a very positive impact in many aspects of Scottish society. That ranges from improved health and social care, indeed in the news today, better access to digital communications, cleaner energy and transport, to improve safety and security, just to give a few examples. We all know that science research has an extremely important activity in Scotland. The total investment in research and development in Scotland is £2.3 billion a year. Now more and more expert voices have been speaking out of the damage that Brexit is causing to the investment, because international collaboration is the heart of the success of science and research in this country. David Stewart will be aware of the tremendous record of Scottish scientists in Scotland that the Bank of England is going to honour in the new £50 note. Would the minister share my campaign to have Professor John McLeod, who discovered insulin from Aberdeen, appearing on the new £50 note? Of course, Professor McLeod has been an excellent candidate, and many candidates in Scotland have given a successful track record in science and innovation in the centuries that have made a difference to ordinary people's lives, not just in this country but across the world. However, in a Scots-born noble laureate, Sir Fraser Stoddart, named one other eminent scientist, has said that what is most important is to be able to have at least 15 different nationalities in a large research group. That is the way we do science, we do it at a global level. Scotland is truly a global leader in science. We are an outward looking country with valuable international collaborations that support high quality research. The Scottish Government alone provides £500 million annually for science and research at Scotland's universities and our research institutes and public bodies, including NHS Scotland. Scotland's higher education research and development spend, as a percentage of GDP, was ranked top of all parts of the UK and fifth highest in the OECD countries in 2016. A phenomenal track record, and that has been leading to results on research excellence. Three Scottish universities are in the times higher education global top 200 for research volume, income and reputation, and four in the global top 200 for research influence, as measured by publication citations. All of that underpins Scotland's economy and Scottish jobs. The latest figures show that private investment in research in Scotland surpassed the £1 billion mark for the first time ever in 2016. 23 per cent of new UK spin-outs, 23 per cent are from Scottish universities, more than again in any other part of the UK. Just last month, NOVA Innovation was awarded the Enterprise Europe Network Award 2018 for its work on renewable energy as part of a pan-European project. Ironic then that our full participation in the European programme that supported this project, Horizon 2020, is now being threatened because of Brexit. Scotland has so far secured almost €558 million from Horizon 2020 alone. Our universities are well connected globally. Scottish universities have a high percentage of EU students, a higher percentage in other parts of the UK and more than a quarter, a quarter of all full-time university research staff are from EU countries. We punch way above our weight. It is no wonder that the times higher education world university rankings for 2019 show that nine of Scotland's universities are in the global top 200 for international outlook. I want to not just highlight or truly outstanding international research community in Scotland and our global connections. I want us to safeguard all of that for the future as well. Professor Lee Cron in the University of Glasgow recently gave the clearest of warnings of the impact of Brexit on science and research in this country. He said, if I can't run a world-leading team of researchers here, I am not going to let the skills, knowledge and momentum that we've built die because of a hard Brexit. Many of us will be forced to move our research abroad. So I'm shocked and I'm sure many are and dismayed that the casual attitude that the UK Government has been taking towards the threat that Brexit poses to Scotland's global reputation for world-leading research. That it poses to the freedom of movement of both Scottish and EU researchers and that it poses to the Scotland's ability to compete and participate in the key European research programmes as well. Years of building trust through co-operation and partnership are now being sacrificed thanks to infighting in the Conservative Party in Westminster. That impact is starting to be felt. According to data in the science journal Nature, UK participation is a lead co-ordinator in EU multilateral projects through horizon 2020 has significantly reduced since 2016. There are many other impacts as well. The third sector invests significant amounts of money in Scottish research and now one of the key research funding charities, The Welcome Trust, has raised concerns around the impact of Brexit on its future potential investments. Its director, Jeremy Farage, has stated, We have invested in the UK for more than 80 years. It has provided an environment in which science and innovation can thrive, but if the conditions in the culture here are damaged, that will affect our support because it is not unconditional. If such damage to our reputation and status can be done even before Brexit, it is easy to see why so many are anxious about the situation after the 29th of March next year. The Scottish Government's paper, Scotland's Place in Europe, Science and Research, published earlier this week, quotes the recent letter of 29 Nobel prize winners to the Prime Minister, which says, Science needs to flourish and that requires the flow of people and ideas across borders. Yet the UK's hostile rhetoric and attitude isn't helping to make EU friends or EU friends in this country feel welcome here at home. Polling by trade union prospects showed that nearly 70 per cent of EU scientists in the UK are thinking of leaving after Brexit. In a Scotland, a country that voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, we should be resolutely focused on attracting the best minds in Europe to work and study here to help us to build a successful and prosperous nation. Instead, thanks to the action of others, we face the prospect of a Brexit brain drain. That is what we face. We have to stand together and stop that happening. I have been actively encouraging EU nationals that I have been meeting, as others have been as well, to continue to study and work at universities and other research organisations in Scotland. It is really important that, amidst the chaos of Brexit, we send out a message that Scotland is open for business and that we welcome with open arms people from across EU countries to our universities and research institutions. Oliver Mundell. I thank the minister for giving way, but does he think that the speech that he is making here today says that we are open for business or doesn't say that we are focused entirely on the negative? I am saying that Scotland is open for business. I only wish that the Conservative Party would say that as well. I support the work that is being done by universities and colleges to reassure and support EU staff and their families as far as possible. In addition to the effect that people already hear, the Home Office's current approach to visiting scientists and researchers has already been damaging to our reputation and our ability to welcome experts from around the world. Numerous esteemed scientists who were due recently to attend and speak at the world congress of psychiatric genetics held in Glasgow were denied entry to Scotland due to visa delays and refusals. That is really unacceptable and threatens to get worse if researchers from Europe are going to be treated by the UK Government with the same relentless hostility. It is becoming increasingly clear that the UK Government will offer at best a hugely damaging, blindfold Brexit that would still leave us guessing about the long-term future of our valuable research collaborations, which the UK Government has made very little progress to secure. International collaboration is critical to maintaining and strengthening Scotland's excellence in research, as well as meeting our economic policy goals and improving public services in this country. We should not allow Brexit and the hostile immigration policies of the UK Government to constrain Scotland's scientific and economic progress. We should ensure that Scotland will continue to be an outward looking, open and welcoming country. Compared with the rest of the UK, Scotland employs proportionally more EU academic staff in our universities and institutions, we have proportionally more EU students, we have proportionally more outgoing domestic students participating in Erasmus Plus, we punch way above our weight in securing EU research funding and we have a higher rate of research staff in the EU working in Scottish institutions. Scotland voted to remain in the EU, but it is facing Brexit with our further and higher education research sectors having the most to lose. Our voice therefore deserves to be heard and heeded. Maintaining single market membership and freedom of movement, including for student staff and researchers, is therefore more important to Scotland than to the UK as a whole. Maintaining participation in EU research programmes is more important to Scotland than to the UK as a whole. In conclusion, I say that we must do all that we can to protect this vital national sector from the reckless actions of the UK Tory Government and Brexit. I commend the motion to Parliament. I call Oliver Mundell to speak to a move amendment 1468.1. Mr Mundell, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to begin by focusing on the positive. It's easy in the current political climate to jump straight to the negative, to challenge and dispute what other people have said, but sometimes it's also important to stop and take stock of the positive and realise that despite the differences of opinion that exist, there is a great deal we can agree on. The chamber needs no reminding of the exceptional work that our universities, research institutes and departments do. However, it remains vitally important that we do everything that we can to tell this incredible story both domestically and around the world. Indeed, arguably the task of articulating and celebrating the outstanding contribution that these skilled and dedicated scientists, academics and researchers make to our nation, not only economically but also culturally, is even more important post Brexit. I remain absolutely sure, as a lead voter myself, that practically no one voted to diminish the role of our universities, to diminish our international standards for excellence in research, to reduce or decrease the strong international links we enjoy, both with Europe and the rest of the world, when it comes to being at the forefront of scientific advances. No thank you right now. Indeed, I believe that whatever our respective stances are in relation to Brexit, the vast majority of Scots want to see our university sector, our research sector, our scientific sector survive, grow and thrive, not just in a European sense but in a truly global world where we are creating new connections and working together to solve the major challenges that we face, whether that be good healthcare or climate change, is vitally important. Not just to Scotland but to the whole of humanity. I'm grateful to Mr Mundell for giving me a minute. I wonder if he could answer this question for me. Does he believe that those laudable objectives, which I endorse, will be enhanced or diminished by the UK Government's opposition to freedom of movement for EU citizens? Oliver Mundell? I think that there are challenges that lie ahead. I don't stand here today, Presiding Officer, and deny that. The fundamental climate in which our country operates internationally is going to change. We have to remember that, at the end of the day, that is what the British people, as a majority, voted for. The job of the UK Government is to try and balance out those different priorities. I would also stress to the Scottish Government, which has been completely absent from today's debate so far, that the UK Government is working very hard to ensure the continued settled status of EU nationals. We want to send out a message, and certainly from those benches, where we strongly want to send out this message today, that all EU nationals are welcome here in Scotland and we very much value the contribution that they make, not just to the education sector but right across our society. I have taken an intervention already and I will just make a little bit of progress. It is in that positive spirit that I brought forward today's Scottish Conservative amendment to the Government's motion and I am pleased to move it in my name. I also think that it is important to highlight that the Scottish further education sector and indeed many of our research institutions do not exist in isolation and that is both true in a UK sense, the European sense and beyond. Again, I think that it is important to get that balance right. From my reading of the Government's motion for this debate, there seems to be a lack of balance and nuance and, where possible, we have sought to strip some of the politics out of the motion because, whilst the concerns that many in the sector have outlined give cause to reflect and deserve careful consideration in debate, I believe that it serves no one's purpose to seek to politicise the sector or to politicise those concerns or in any way to suggest that there is no reason to do so. I believe that the sector overall is at risk. I remain confident for the reasons that are outlined in our amendment that the UK Government is doing everything that it can to achieve an orderly Brexit, a negotiated Brexit, a Brexit that will allow many of those relationships to continue and flourish while at the same time enabling new partnerships and relationships to grow. I particularly welcome the chancellor's commitment of existing funding up until 2020 and, for that matter, a number of new government initiatives that have been announced since the British public voted to leave the EU and some of my colleagues will talk more on that. I believe that those initiatives help to shore up the university sector and will support new and innovative research across Scotland and across the United Kingdom. I am also pleased that the UK will continue to participate in the horizon programme and that the UK and the EU's intention is that UK researchers and businesses will remain eligible to participate in horizon 2020 and that that will remain unchanged for the duration of the programme. That has already been agreed as part of the financial settlement that was signed off by both the UK and the EU commission negotiators in a draft withdrawal agreement and welcomed by the other 27 countries at the March European Council. What's more, the next horizon scheme could absolutely include the UK and would be desirable for that to be the case with the new funding scheme due to last from 2021 to 2027. As the EU commission has already indicated, the legal text supporting that programme is done in such a way that could include the UK in future as a third country and that the doors are open for discussion. I believe that this flexibility is to be welcomed and that is why we are pleased to support Labour's amendment today and we will do all that we can to help to secure a positive future involvement for the UK in horizon. Just like the Scottish Conservatives have urged the UK Government to ensure that the visa system is structured to attract students and staff of the highest calibre to work in UK universities and research centres. We believe that there is no impediment to this remaining the case in post Brexit Britain and we will continue to strongly make that case as outlined in our amendment today. Finally, before turning to my conclusion, I would simply like to say to the Liberal Democrats that we won't be able to support their amendment to the motion at decision time. While I commend them on their sometimes somewhat obsessive wish to hold another referendum, we believe that this matter has already been settled and that the best Brexit deal will now be secured by ensuring co-operation across all the parties with everyone doing what they can to support the Prime Minister. As she seeks to build a consensus. I am grateful to Mr Mundell. He sent out an argument before he got on to the Liberal Democrat amendment about continuing to make the case for an appropriate approach to immigration. The Parliament unanimously has agreed to a proposition that we should have a reintroduction of the fresh talent initiative, the post study work visa initiative. We have agreed that unanimously across the chamber and the UK Government has said no. What are we supposed to do when the UK Government is oblivious to unanimity in this institution on this point, which we all think would be a sensible idea? How can we have confidence, having had that experience, in the argument that Mr Mundell is putting forward that somehow there will be a pragmatic approach taken to immigration, where all of the evidence currently flies in the face of that? I thank the cabinet secretary for his intervention and I think that it comes back to where I started. Clearly, Presiding Officer, I adopt a much more positive approach. I think that what we have got to do is work towards the system that we want to see. I think that we have got to take time to reflect on all the comments that have come in relation to the immigration system from the CBI, from the National Farmers Union Scotland and we have got to look because these issues do not exist in isolation. The cabinet secretary looks confused but immigration to the university sector does not exist in isolation and it has got to be part of a balanced package of measures that deliver not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK. Rather than seeking to make political hay out of the times frustratingly slow progress, the cabinet secretary would be better at recognising that, on those benches, we are working very hard to achieve the same goal. That takes me nicely to my concluding remarks, Presiding Officer, where I would simply ask the SNP at this time of national importance to look at their own motivations, to ask themselves whether debates like that have been brought before the chamber in order to highlight an important issue or whether debates like that have in fact been brought before the chamber to use an important issue to further their own self-interest. With the challenges that lie ahead and given the significance of our international research collaborations and our reputation for scientific excellence, then surely the national interest must come first. If the national interest does come first, then this is time to work together to put politics aside and to back the Prime Minister in securing the certainty that a deal with the EU would offer. I call on Ian Gray to speak to amendment 1468. Mr Gray, please. Thank you very much Presiding Officer. I think that I'm correct in saying that this is Mr Lochhead's first debate in his new role as Minister for Further and Higher Education, so let me welcome him to his place. I'm absolutely delighted that he chose to open his tenure in that position with that pen to my own local university, Queen Margaret University in East Lothian, pointing out that it has for some 10 years now been led by the principal Petra Vendt, who is from Germany. Their international connections and collaborations spread right the way through the operations of that university. Through groundbreaking research, they are involved in areas such as food science and healthcare technology to mention just a couple of them, so I'm delighted that Mr Lochhead's debut in his new role. I do welcome the opportunity to debate these issues today because they are so important for Scotland and to take the chance to move the amendment in my name as well. When it comes to debate in science, Albert Einstein usually has a quote that you can reach for, and the opposite quote I think for today is when Einstein said, Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. I tend to think that, if Einstein came back, he would probably still be unsure about the structure of the universe, even with all the work that's gone on since his own work, but I fear that the whole sunny saga of Brexit would rather convince him that he'd been right all along about human stupidity. For this has been a chaotic and catastrophic process. There can be no doubt that the higher education sector in Scotland is world leading. In terms of teaching quality, we see many institutions in the top rankings and we excel even further through the research that we produce. The minister pointed out already that in world university rankings, three Scottish universities are in the global top 200 for research, volume, income and reputation, and four of our universities are there for the influence that their research has. Amongst the most productive research institutions, nine of which are among the best in the whole world for their international outlook concerning staff, students and research. That was brought home to me most directly a few years ago when I participated in a delegation from the cross-party group on science and technology when we visited the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It was astonishing, I have to say, how many of the young scientists we met working on that international collaboration, who were from Scottish universities, particularly Glasgow, Strathclyde and Edinburgh, or were Scots studying at other universities but working at CERN and really had a significant leading role in that quite remarkable piece of cutting edge. It also brought home to me that other kind of link because we were lucky enough to be able to visit the site of the experiment that demonstrated the existence of the Higgs boson at perhaps the most complex and elaborate piece of scientific kit in the world. Thus, proving something that Professor Higgs had postulated using no more than his fountain pen sitting in Edinburgh University some 50 years before that, science is a global and international operation. Unfortunately, the current mess and uncertainty of Brexit can only weaken Scotland's strong position in that. Our research excellence, of course, is very much influenced by those European links in particular. £1 in every 10 of Scottish universities' research income comes from the EU, around £105 million every year, and that relates only to universities. It doesn't include the European research funding that goes elsewhere. Horizon 2020 has already been mentioned, the biggest EU research and innovation programme there has ever been, and we see Scotland in the lead again, 13 per cent of UK funding for that programme coming to Scottish institutions. It is so important that we continue to benefit from future Horizon programmes, hence the amendment that we have before Parliament today. Of course, it goes without saying that research is only as good as those who conduct it, and the contribution that EU citizens make to our research sector is indeed vast. Over 12 per cent of staff at our universities, 16 per cent of our postgraduate population and indeed 60 per cent of the UK's internationally co-authored research papers are with EU partners. I want to briefly say that our scientific excellence does not just relate to life sciences and to STEM. Scotland in the wider UK is also a leader in social and humanities research. Significant amounts of research funding within those disciplines are also linked to EU collaboration. 33 per cent of all European research funding, council funding for social science research, comes to the UK. For such strong bonds to continue, it is vital that our academic researchers can still travel to European countries with ease and vice versa. It is two years now since that referendum took place. I hear what Mr Mundell said, but the trouble is that our higher education and scientific research communities still have no idea what the consequences will be of that result. They still do not know what the plans are that they will have to work with in order to mitigate the impact. The truth is that Brexit is already damaging science and research. A recent Nature magazine editorial says that, regardless of whether or not a deal is done, many scientists are already seeing and feeling the impact of Brexit. Researchers are less likely to get collaborators on projects because academics in Europe view them as a risky bet. Some are finding it harder to fill key positions. Others feel unable to apply for EU funding. The truth is that the impact is already here to protect science, research and the other sectors that we are debating this afternoon. At the very least, we must work towards a deal that ensures that we retain as close our relationship as is possible with the European Union. To speak to and move amendment 14638.2 for around six minutes please. I'm sure that Mr Gray would recognise that when Deputy Presiding Officer dropped a bottle of water, she was merely testing one of Einstein's theories rather than trying to interrupt his remarks. I hear all of him accusing some of us of being obsessive. I must say that, when I watched Jacob Rees-Mogg on the television and one or two others, I think that he has a whole new definition of obsession that I'd only care to invite Mr Mundell to consider carefully. Can I too welcome Richard Lochhead to his place? I thought he might have got fisheries research and he spent eight years talking about that in this place. I suppose the point that he would have made, and maybe I could help him make it, would be that there would be many people I can remember who worked at the Marine Lab in Torrey doing fisheries research who were from every part of Europe and various other parts in between. That still goes to this day and is still certainly the case with the Marine Centre up in Scalloway in Shetland too. When any country faces the uncertainties of the modern world, it makes some sense to play to one's strengths. Scotland's higher education institutions, the research that they do and the people that they employ are a strength. A strength that has attracted academics from across the globe to the UK and to Scotland. A strength that has been a welcome mat for international students. A strength that demonstrates that we are connected to part of the European university's research infrastructure. We are simply part of that European family. It is a strength that we are in danger of now losing. That is why 35 Nobel laureates recently wrote to the Prime Minister calling for a deal on science and innovation that allowed the closest possible co-operation between the UK and the EU. This is a group of outstanding people. They include the President of the Royal Society, Venki Ramakishkrin and Dr Richard Henderson, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2017 and who was born and studied at Edinburgh University. The strength is why 23 senior figures from the University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Aberdeen and St Andrews signed an open letter warning of the consequences of Brexit and calling for a people's vote. The strength explains why the biggest biomedical research lab in Europe, the Crick Institute in London, surveyed over 1,000 staff in October and found that 97 per cent think that a hard Brexit would be bad for UK science. Gillian Martin is very grateful to Tavish Scott for taking an intervention. Oliver Mundell said that people who are talking about this in a negative way in warning as you are doing just now are politicking. Would you say that the people from the Crick Institute are politicking? I think that the staff of the Crick Institute and it's important to recognise again that 1,000 of them were surveyed in this work. That's the reason I want to make about UK science. Far from politicking, we're just not only concerned about their jobs and their futures but we're also concerned about the very essence of science and why we do it. Gillian Martin draws a fair implication there as to their motive in making these arguments. Just 3 per cent think that the scientific community is being listened to and represented in discussions. The institute's director, Paul Nurse, said that a hard Brexit could cripple UK science when the Government needs to sit up and listen. Far from anyone in this chamber being a negative, it is simply to point out and illustrate the depth of concern that exists across the science community both here in Scotland and across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. How is it right and in the country's interests to turn our back on international people who have worked and lived here, who further our knowledge and our learning, to turn our back on international students by a scandalous approach to immigration that basically says that you're not welcome here and to turn our back on that flowering of ideas that comes from international collaboration and exchange. Therefore, here in Scotland to damage the international reach and attractiveness of a major Scottish success story, our strengths in our universities and our world-leading research. Society set the site with commendable accuracy in their briefing for today's debate. 18 per cent of academic staff in Scotland are EU nationals, and further 13 per cent come from further a field. That is a higher proportion than from any other part of the UK. 25 per cent of staff carrying out only research in Scotland are EU nationals. In engineering technology, that number rises to nearly one-half of all the academics employed here in Scotland. How do those who wish to take us out of Europe propose to attract such talented Europeans to work in Scotland in the future? As we've all been told by anyone who goes to their own universities or institutions in their own parts of Scotland, they may just simply choose to work elsewhere. Many Scottish institutions of course collaborate with European partners, but that has gone backwards since 2016 and it will now get worse. The RSE makes the crucial point. Notwithstanding UK Government reassurances that funding for UK research will not suffer as a result of the UK's withdrawal from the EU, this cannot compensate for the potential loss of the added value gained from full UK participation in EU programmes. That strikes me as the essence of the argument and the dangers of what we are about to lose. Horizon 2020 demonstrates the collaboration that Ian Gray and others have already mentioned. However, few in academia, never mind in politics, believe that a Brexiteer-led UK Government will pay one penny more into this programme after 2020 than is being done in the current programme. Imagine trying to convince Prime Minister Dominic Raab to write a check to Brussels for anything. Never mind for science in a programme that would support universities in the United Kingdom. However, that programme has brought all those advances to Scotland and the UK. One other point, as well as Scotland's universities, the James Hutton Institute and the SRUC will be directly affected by the lack of access to EU funds. Those land-based bodies have been ideally placed to benefit from collaborative funding projects. Compared with the rest of the UK, Scotland's land-based research is simply more joined up from producer to researcher, which makes Scotland internationally useful for collaboration and partnerships in this area. The research council does not do that and DEFRA has no funds in this area. What is the chance of that essential work being replicated? There appears to be no obvious upside to dragging the UK and Scotland higher education sector out of the EU. That is why so many in this sector want to write to vote on whatever cobbled up negotiation appears out of London and Brussels. This Parliament should speak for our university and research sector and all the people who work in it, but we should give them a right to vote on it in their future. That is the member time move. Colin Ross Greer, for around six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to welcome the minister to his post. It is now almost 20 months since article 50 was triggered and the UK Government is still filled to negotiate what its former Brexit secretary thought would be the easiest deal in history. It is clear that the Prime Minister is paralysed by the infighting in her own party, too scared to take on the hard-right ideologues on her back benches and within her cabinet. One of the many areas of our society that is already suffering the consequences of this bizarre mix of incompetence and malice is our university sector and the wider research and education sectors here in Scotland. We know that membership of the EU brings benefits such as funding and support for international research collaborations, the Erasmus Plus programme and the immense boost that the right to European freedom movement gives to individuals and to institutions who they work for or with. We cannot pick and choose our favourite bits of the EU and hope to retain their full benefits without being a member. That is not how the EU works, which seems to have passed the UK Government by. We saw that when Switzerland sought to restrict freedom movement in 2014, its participation in EU research programmes was then immediately restricted. Funding itself can be replaced by the Government, although there is little trust in the UK Government's commitment to that. However, the reputation and prestige that comes with hosting huge EU-funded multinational research projects cannot be so easily replaced. Switzerland never even implemented its restrictions on freedom movement. It opted instead to negotiate a new agreement with the EU in return for restoring access to research programmes. Nonetheless, the vice-president for research of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology has said that it may take them at least half a decade for Swiss research institutions to recover the standing that they have lost to re-establish themselves globally. That was for me a two-year restriction as a result of a decision that was not implemented. The UK faces full, complete, absolute and permanent or at least long-term removal from European freedom movement. How can those parties, more than just the Tories, who are committed to ending freedom movement, reconcile that commitment with their intention to retain access to EU research programmes? Horizon 2020 funding is currently worth over €200 million to Scottish research institutes. Research projects are also funded through European structural funds, of which we have received almost a billion in the funding cycle. EU citizens make up more than one in five of the research staff at our universities, and there are more than 20,000 students from the rest of the EU who are currently studying here in Scotland. I appreciate that the UK Government has finally, after two years of unnecessary delay, stated that EU citizens' rights to stay in the UK will be secured, even if there is no deal. That provides some relief to EU citizens who are here, but only some. It does not resolve the entirely understandable level of distrust towards the Home Office, given its hostile environment policies and its typically staggering levels of incompetence. Edinburgh University is part of a pilot scheme. John Swinney. I am grateful to Mr Greer. Does he also accept that there is a future threat from all of this? As the finance committee of Parliament pointed out in its report today, population growth in Scotland is a central aspect of how we meet our economic challenges. A significant obstacle to population growth will be the hostility towards free movement of individuals, as a consequence of the process that we are currently going through. Ross Greer. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for making that very relevant point. I am sure that, like colleagues, he heard the evidence that we took last week in the European Committee, where the chair of the UK Government's Migration Advisor Committee essentially said that if a sector of our economy was not of high priority, such as the financial sector in the city of London, it might just have to restrict itself after Brexit. We repeatedly cited areas of Scotland's economy that are essential to our wellbeing as a nation, but are also very much dependent on freedom of movement, our ability to attract people in, and they were essentially dismissed as being acceptable casualties of the Brexit process. On the point of Edinburgh University's pilot scheme, it is to register European citizens who are living here in advance of Brexit. It opens this month. I have heard from a number of European citizens who work at Edinburgh University who have told me that they do not intend to take part and they do not know other EU national members of staff who do intend. The reason is complete mistrust of the Home Office. They appreciate their university's support, but they fear that their documents will be lost. They will be wrongly ordered to leave the country as others have already been. They know the reputation of the Home Office, the racist deportation of citizens from the Windrush generation, the incompetence that has already seen some EU citizens wrongly told to leave the country, and they rightly ask, why be guinea pigs for this department's latest project? I would also like to take a moment to highlight some of the brilliant benefits in research and training that we get through EU membership, benefits that directly impact communities in the west of Scotland. The University of the West of Scotland has certainly benefited from those opportunities. Working with Queen's University in Belfast and Dandock Institute of Technology in the Republic, they have secured 7.7 million euros to research chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The funding has been used to create the Borders and Regions Airways Training Hub, appropriately acronymed BREF. It employs about 30 research and doctoral students. These are high-level advanced medical research jobs. Earlier this year, BREF won a Northern Ireland healthcare award for its research into lung disease. The award-winning research project brings immense benefits to the west of Scotland, to Ireland north and south and to anyone across the world affected by COPD. The BREF project jointly hosted by UWS is exactly the kind of cross-border advanced medical research that EU funding makes possible. I am grateful that the UK Government has guaranteed the current funding cycle that the BREF project is not under immediate threat. That only lasts for about the next 18 months. Where will the next advanced medical research project come from? Will it be able to collaborate across borders and attract the most talented researchers to work on them? Of course, EU funding and programmes are not just for people with PhDs doing advanced medical research. West College Scotland benefits immensely from Erasmus Plus, which the Parliament recently debated after a committee inquiry. The college participates in the enhancing employability and skills through mobility programme. Partnered with Arhous Business Network in Denmark and the Vamiya Vocational Institute in Finland, the college students get more opportunities to develop their skills abroad and benefit from the experiences outside of Scotland. Just this summer, students from the professional cookery course did placement in Arhous. Next time that you are in Paisley or Greenock and you are experiencing some Scandinavian cuisine, which I am sure is a regular occurrence for members across the chamber, you will know where those skills come from and that you are appreciating and benefiting from an EU programme like Erasmus. The scale and depth of opportunities available to our universities, colleges and other institutions through research, collaboration, funding, exchanges and that fundamental right to freedom movement is hard to overstate. It is immensely frustrating to see that it is at risk. We are fast running out of time but there is a window in which we can avoid this nonsense and reverse the damage already done. I hope that we can seize it. I move on to the open debate and speeches of six minutes please. Gillian Martin, followed by Jamie Greene. It is difficult to quantify the impact of Brexit on scientific research in Scotland for a number of reasons. The first is that a lot of the reports around this tend to mostly concentrate on UK data. No, it has already been said many times already this afternoon that Scottish universities punch well above their weight in relation to our nation's size and population, in terms of being successful in garnering EU funding from, for example, Horizon 2020 and have been significant partners in EU collaborative research programmes, particularly in life sciences. We still do not know what kind of Brexit we are looking at, so we cannot quantify the effects of it because we do not know what we are actually looking at yet. What migration and visa systems will be in place? What will our customs arrangement be? Until we have answers to all those questions, the level of damage, and it is damage, I think that perhaps rather than just being unrelentingly, blindly positive about things, is quite offensive to quite a lot of the academics, for example, that Tavish Scott mentioned, who has actually warned of that damage. It is difficult to quantify it exactly, but let us look at what we do know. We know that 2 billion euros of the 4.8 billion euros that the United Kingdom has won from Horizon 2020 since 2014 has gone to science. We know that Scottish organisations have secured almost 530-odd million worth of funding from Horizon 2020, with three quarters of that going to our universities. To take just one area of vital research, I went on to the Scottish EU funding portal, and I put in one search of low-carbon. One narrow search I found that 157 current projects are funded by the EU. As everyone here will know, Scotland is committed to being a leader in reducing the causes of climate change. We have to decarbonise, and we have to beat the forefront of renewable energy, agricultural and transport innovation if we are going to achieve that, but also if we are going to have the economy that thrives as a result of the innovation that has been based here. That EU funding and collaboration is the bedrock of that innovation. With the lack of a deal with the EU, we do not know what we can expect to be a non-EU partner in framework 9, which is the successor to Horizon 2020, because that door is open to us in the same way that it is open to Norway, Iceland and others that are not currently in the EU if the UK Government negotiates access to it. That, Mr Mundell, is in the national interest, and I am not hearing anything from that side of the chamber that is saying that we are looking at anything past 2020. We also know that research collaboration is between the EU. Yes, I will. Oliver Mundell, I thank the member for taking the intervention and for that comment, but she might want to reflect on the fact that, on this side of the chamber, we are looking way beyond 2020. We are trying to secure a comprehensive deal with the EU to make sure that we have a smooth and orderly Brexit, and we see that as a priority because it is that certainty that will help our institutions here in Scotland. Gillian Martin, I am happy to give the intervention even though Mr Mundell never took any of mine, but I tell you, you may say that, but I cannot see many people watching this on the scientific and research fraternity having any confidence in any deal that is going to do anything for them. I have just said a way in which we can give them confidence. If that is on the table and that is what Mr Mundell is saying, then fair enough, but I do not think that that is what he is saying. We are trying to, it is just not good enough, get on with it. We also know that research collaborations between EU partners have got more significantly more impact than those standalone domestic ones. The latest UNESCO data shows that 62 per cent of the UK's research outputs are now international collaborations, but the US is only on 39 per cent. It is that internationalisation, as Ross Greer has mentioned, if you are in a collaboration with lots of other EU partners, then you have a window into this internationalisation. That puts us, as a nation ahead of the US, for science productivity. That is significant. Collaborations between universities often lead to opportunities for business collaborations across EU countries as well. I do not think that that can be ignored either. There is a big knock-on effect of universities and research partners working together that affects other sectors too. We also know that being in the EU has afforded not just the free and easy movement of students, researchers and leads on projects, but it has also made the flow of equipment and samples to facilitate their work seamless and tariff-free. In the autumn of 2016, I was involved in a debate in this chamber about the potential impacts of Brexit research funding. In that debate, I have read out a long letter from a PhD research student working in the University of Aberdeen, Samantha Lissomar. This is a time when the UK Government is two years left to negotiate a deal with limit potential negative impacts. For reference, her letter is in its entirety in the official report from 6 October 2016. I read it back before I wrote my speech and it is utterly depressing how many of Sam Lissomar's issues then are still unanswered. In fact, it is not just depressing, it is absolutely scandalous. Samantha Lissomar is now a postdoctoral research fellow working on the development of self-based treatments for auto-immunity and cancer. She is working in research that is going to save lives and is world-leading in medical innovation. I got back in touch with her and I just asked her, how are things now? I got another letter back from her and I would like to read a bit from that now. She said, hi Gillian, a lot of damage has already been done. People are leaving. I have witnessed goodbye party after goodbye party as EU scientists in short contracts choose to go home rather than stay here through the uncertainty of Brexit. The UK scientists are also leaving. I, myself, am currently applying for jobs in the USA and Canada because I cannot plan a career here if there is a hard Brexit or a deal that is bad for my sector, which means that we cannot collaborate. People do not realise that we are not paid by universities, we are paid from the grant money that researchers get and a huge amount of that is from the EU. The EU has funded over £2 billion in the UK science since 2014. This is the equivalent to another research council in its entirety. I could go on about it and pick more up but I do not have the time. When I finished in 2016 I said about Sam's original letter, Sam needs answers, Sam's colleagues need answers and Sam's university needs answers. Will that funding be replaced? Will that collaboration be possible? Will talented EU citizens still be able to study and work in our universities? We are still asking the same questions two years on today. It is an absolute scandal and I do not think that if anyone for the research paternity listened to Oliver Mundell's speech that they were going to get the message that it is just cheer up, gives them any comfort whatsoever. Jamie Greene, followed by John McAlpine. Can I start by welcoming the minister to his role? I could see him back in government in that respect. It is an interesting debate and I am glad that he has chosen the subject. I think that it is an important one. Scotland has an excellent track record that we should all be proud of, notwithstanding the environment that we find ourselves in. We have five universities in Scotland that rank in the global top 200. This is more per capita than any other country in the world and that is something that everyone should be proud of. This is a country where we first cloned a mammal, where the MRI scanner was invented, where our universities support over 180,000 jobs. In that respect, I support part of Mr O'Lockhead's motion, where he says that we should appreciate the significance that our universities and research institutions have in fostering international collaboration and the effect that that has on life here in Scotland. In today's debate, I also feel that it is important to point out that that scientific excellence will continue to operate beyond the realms of a post Brexit UK. I say that not to detract from the important point that the Government's motion makes today around listening to voices from the science communities. We have heard that from many members and I think that that is a fair point to make. Today, Scottish universities have shown little sign of slowing down since the EU referendum when it comes to their continued participation and involvement on the international stages. Just this week, a group of Scottish universities announced the creation of a blue carbon forum to analyse the way that Scotland's marine life could help mitigate global climate change. Scottish universities came together recently to form the industrial centre for artificial intelligence research and digital diagnostics, which is currently working to improve patient care throughout the NHS and also generating jobs in the tech and healthcare sectors. One example of that comes from my region in the west. The University of West Scotland hosted local first responders for joint training exercises and announced a partnership with Kibble Education and Care Centre to support vulnerable youth. They are also working in a number of areas to support getting people into the STEM sectors locally. Some of those examples have came through with their new Lanarkshire campus, which will create a vital boost to local jobs and the economy. The further and higher education sectors are going full steam ahead as best they can in Scotland to promote Scotland as a good place to study. Maureen Watt, I thank the member for giving way. Another university in the west of Scotland, Glasgow University's principal, Sir Anton Muscatelli, said that a hard Brexit would represent the most unhinged example of national self-sabotage in living memory and that we as politicians have a moral obligation to avoid it. How exactly is he wrong? Jamie Greene. I'm very pleased that the member brought that up. In that sense, can I challenge the member to ensure that her MP colleagues in Westminster do not vote down a deal that would result in a hard deal or no deal? I would encourage you to take that to your colleagues because that is a real possibility if you do vote down a deal that the Prime Minister brings back from Europe. Part of what has made Scotland a world leader in academia is our resilience and commitment to some of those institutions. However, we cannot have this debate and ignore the fact that, right now, we are seeing fewer and fewer clearing spaces available to Scottish students. This year, by light August, there were 900 courses available for the rest of UK students and fewer than 150 available for Scottish students due to Government quotas. We are regularly warned that universities are in need of funding, as this debate allows to, to remain financially sustainable and to continue their research. However, in fact, nearly half of all Scottish universities are already currently running on a deficit. There is no mention of that in the minister's motion. There is no mention of that in the minister's speech today. They talk about the geographic mobility of students, but there is no conversation around the social mobility of students, especially those from Scotland. Let's have a debate about mobility, but we cannot ignore the fact that domestic government has a key role to play in making sure that our higher education institutions are well-placed and well-funded to succeed, regardless of the constitutional or political environments that they operate in. In the limited time that I have available, I would also like to say that Scotland already participates in a number of programmes. The most commonly cited ones, such as Horizon and Erasmus, are some, but there are many others, multimillion-pound partnerships between Scottish institutions and European counterparts. Many of those ensure that Scotland is a leader in those sectors in terms of its desire to be at the forefront of research and innovation, and it will always keep and remain that desire. In closing, I think that Scottish universities play a pivotal role in our economy and our culture. Our amendment does not hide from the fact that those benches believe that future UK visa structures should continue to allow those institutions to recruit both the staff and the students who are the brightest and the best from wherever they may be. We do need people, but those people also need courses and they need well-funded universities to work and study in, so let's have a sensible debate about the future of Scotland's higher education, but you cannot single out one aspect whilst ignoring others. The Scottish Government has a role to play in this devolved matter, and the lack of awareness of that in its motion today is quite telling, if not entirely predictable. John McAlpine, followed by David Stewart. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I welcome the minister to his new post and apologise for missing the first couple of minutes of his speech. I enjoyed what I did here. Within the Brexit debate, it is easy to lose sight of the big picture in the detail of the daily back and forth of negotiations. The futures of all sectors in Scotland is at stake, but the future of our universities in particular will be determined in the months to come. Until now, as others have said, Scotland has more than pulled its weight in cross-border research collaboration and the success of our universities in securing research income and delivering ground-breaking research is testament to this. The figures for the past few years are impressive and, as of July 2018, Scottish organisations have secured almost €533 million worth of funding from the EU's Horizon 2020 research fund alone. That represents more than 11 per cent of the total UK funding, so we are punching above our weights. Within walking distance of where we stand, Edinburgh University is the seventh largest individual recipient of Horizon 2020 funds, a remarkable achievement that is under threat as Brexit backing Tories seem to think that we can simply keep calm and carry on. It is just not good enough. Oliver Mundell and other Conservative speakers have accused us, all the other parties, of being too negative about this, but we are just repeating what higher educational institutes are telling us. At the moment, the European Committee of this Parliament is having an inquiry into the article 50 negotiations and preparedness, and we have received a number of submissions from higher education institutions, which I would urge the Conservatives to read. One of the most worrying ones was from the University of the Highlands and Islands. If I could just quote them, they say, the university has worked closely with a wide range of EU higher education institutions over decades. While many still state that their intention is to continue to work with us, irrespective of the final outcome of article 50 negotiations, some are becoming hesitant about future collaboration. We have had one example of a research partnership where UHI had been proposed in response to the continuing article 50 uncertainty, the partnership agreed that the chances of a successful application were greater with a non-UK lead. That is understandable in the highly competitive process of many EU programme applications, but it is worrying for the future. The UHI submission goes on to express concerns about other funding streams such as the inter-egg cross-border programmes. It says that there is great uncertainty surrounding future access to such programmes. It also mentioned the structural funding, which, for an organisation such as UHI, has been absolutely transformational. There is another submission from University Scotland, which makes similar points to the University of the Highlands and Islands. I want to quote them in particular in their concerns about EU nationals in the higher education sector, because they are clearly not convinced by any reassurances that the Tories are giving. They say that, in their submission, we are seeking clarity on what the residency work and study rights would be of those EU nationals already working, studying or on Erasmus Plus programmes in Scotland, what the immigration rules and requirements will be in place for EU nationals, how the UK Government intends underwrites would work in practice, whether Scottish higher education institutions could access replacement parts of their eyes in 2020 programme and whether Scottish HEIs could access replacement to Erasmus Plus. They are certainly not reassured by any of the Conservatives' bland statements about that it will be all right on the night. I want to commend the Labour amendment, because we need to look to the future in this regard, and the future is horizon Europe. The current proposals for this new scheme are that it will have a 20 per cent bigger budget than its predecessor. As one commission official rightly noted at its launch, the EU 27 will gain a tower expense in terms of horizon Europe because we will not be part of it. It is not only that the cake is bigger than before, but the guy who was eating more of that cake is not around the table anymore. I suppose that we could find grim solace in the fact that, at last, we have found one example of having your cake and eating it. However, I assume that leave campaigners did not have that in mind for the universities of the EU 27 when they coined that phrase. A key part of the new programme will be to foster collaboration not only across nations but between industry and academia to tackle the five big challenges that we face—health, security, digital climate and food research. As today's debate takes place, there is still a lively discussion in Brussels about what matters the most and how we need to work together to ensure horizon Europe delivers on its potential. The UK Government has asserted that Scottish universities will still be able to participate in the future, but I do not see the concrete steps towards delivering that. No deal, of course, would be a disaster. After the performance of the immigration minister Caroline Knox last week discussing a no deal scenario, does anyone seriously think that EU nationals would be safe to continue their work in Scotland? That means nearly a quarter of all the research-only staff in Scotland's universities face an uncertain future. Scotland deserves better than that. David Stewart, followed by Gil Paterson. I also welcome Richard Lochhead to his place and thank him for agreeing to meet me at very early doors to discuss the University of the Highlands and Islands. No Friday evening pub quiz is complete without questions about famous Scottish scientists and their inventions. We all in this chamber today know the easy answers. We all know that John Logie Baird invented TV, that Alexander Fleming invented penicillin and, of course, Alexander Graham Bell the telephone. What, if you move to the more challenging level, will mean a Fleming? What about John Napier and Professor John McLeod? I do not see any arms raised in the chamber today to assume that ignorance is bliss. The answer is, Presiding Officer, a designation system for stars, log tables and insulin respectively. We have heard earlier and I agree with the comments that Scotland has a proud record of scientific excellence and international collaboration has been a key factor. Let me give you one example from history. Professor John McLeod, who I mentioned earlier, anabrodonian, who emigrated to North America, shared the 1923 Nobel Prize for medicine with Canadian Frederick Banting for the discovery of insulin at the University of Toronto in 1921-22. Prior to the discovery, having tight diabetes, I was a life-threatening condition. I warmly welcome the Scottish Government's debate and support the motion in Richard Lockhead's name. I would like to focus my remarks on the positive note that the EU has played in our universities over the past 45 years through two main focuses on the very brief time that I have available. The first is the critically important access to research collaborations across the EU and beyond, facilitating what is called in the jargon curiosity-driven research and made easy by feeding with movement of our researchers and scientists. Secondly, as we have heard from other speakers, access to major research funding through the various framework funding models. We have heard a lot about the flagship horizon 2020, and I would agree with what has been said. It has been absolutely crucial in accelerating the cutting-edge science across our university sector and beyond. However, one note of caution was done, and I was looking at the Guardian newspaper recently. They were recording a downturn in both UK participation and funding for projects. They have been across the board concerns from university vice-chancellars that UK projects are losing out even before Brexit has taken place. I would obviously make the clear point that currently Scotland and the UK are extremely well out of the current system, but nevertheless there are concerns about the current situation post the Brexit vote. In 2017, the proportion of UK participation that arose in 2020 was 15 per cent of the total, with just under 16 per cent of the share of the funding. However, if you look at universities UK figures, they show this year that UK participation fell to 12 per cent and funding to 13 per cent. Do not take my word for it, as Alistair Jarvis, the chief executive of universities UK said, it highlights the urgent need for clarity on the UK's participation in the horizon 2020 beyond Brexit and for the UK to still member of the EU. The need to communicate with the UK, universities and researchers are still eligible to participate and apply for funding through EU research and innovation programmes. There is also another warning development sign. The Guardian did a confidential study of the Russell group universities. Members will know that that includes Edinburgh and Glasgow universities. They found evidence, and we have heard that from previous speakers, of discrimination against UK researchers by UK researchers being asked to leave EU funded projects. Let me give you an example in a quote by the Guardian. An EU project officer recommended that a lead investigator drop all UK partners from a consortium because Britain's share of funding is not guaranteed. Another key aspect, of course, is freedom of movement, and we all know that that is fundamental to the EU. My belief is that Scotland has benefit from the ability to track world-leading scientists and embark on global research opportunities because of its membership of the EU. The other aspect is given our early career researchers an opportunity to travel freely across the EU and develop new ideas and products with their peers and bring the knowledge back to Scotland. I think that I mentioned the letter in the Sunday Times by leading academics from across Scotland. What they said, and I quote from the letter, is that we cannot and must not allow Scotland and the EU as a leading role in these networks as it is not easily replaced. Unfortunately, we are already seeing a loss of leadership in research collaboration since the Brexit vote. I think that it is useful to look at total funding. If we look at total awards from the previous programme, that was framework programme 7, predated horizon 2020, it was £729.5 million. If we look at my own region, it helped towards the United Nations of Europe of three million euros for marine and renewable research. Those projects make a real difference to innovation across the region. Very often they build on a platform of major structural fund investment over the last three decades, which has made such a difference to my region's economy. There are, of course, plans to develop in key sectors such as renewables and health sciences, but the remainder of horizon 2020 programme and the future horizon Europe activity are being very limited as a result of Brexit. I see that time is against me. In the few seconds remaining, I would make this very key point that you probably need the predictive powers of the brand sear to develop the next steps in the Brexit process. I would conclude by saying that the challenge for Scotland in the future is twofold. We need to maintain the spend on research and use every technique to secure the best and brightest talent from across Europe and beyond. Brexit casts a dark shadow by using our own history of innovation and scientific endeavour. We will continue to create new knowledge for generations yet unborn. All speakers so far have had a bit of leeway, but we have to be a bit tighter now with our speeches up to the six minutes. I call Gil Paterson, followed by Alexander Stewart. Many thanks, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, like most members of the Scottish Parliament, you will be aware of the world acclaimed reputation of the Golden Jubilee National Hospital in Clydebank. Although the hospital provides a wide range of services, it is best known as the home of the regional and national heart and lung service, a flagship hospital for reducing waiting times and the Golden Jubilee Research Institute. On the research side of the hospital's work, significant pharmaceutical research projects have been undertaken. Currently, there are 23 projects under way. With 10 per cent of research funding coming directly from the EU and with 30 per cent of the staff at the Golden Jubilee non-UK citizens, then the Golden Jubilee National Hospital is truly an international undertaking located in Scotland. Indeed, many overseas medical researchers are drawn to the Golden Jubilee hospital because of the superb facilities and the high reputation of the previous work undertaken. The Golden Jubilee is also one of the biggest employers in my constituency. Currently, there are more than 1,700 staff employed by the hospital. In plans to extend the building and its facilities and increase the staff levels to 2,900 are well advanced. Unfortunately, Brexit has already had a negative effect on the hospital's workload. The California medical research group, Ricardio, has recently halted trials on a new heart's drug, citing uncertainty due to EU withdrawal. While drug trial work in UK hospitals has been cancelled by Ricardio, it has continued at other continental European places. The major problem seems to be the medicines regulations post Brexit. It is not certain that data generated in the UK will be accepted by the European Medicines Agency. That means that all internationally funded medical research in the UK is now under threat. My constituent Dr Kevin Parsons, a biodiversity lecturer at Glasgow University, is preparing what is likely to be his final European research application. That grant amounting to 2 million euros, which is research group's biggest funder and has provided continuity for his research projects for several years. You can imagine how damaging the loss of this funding will be. Already European research networks, which fostered collaboration work across the EU, are dropping their UK partners because of Brexit uncertainty. The fact that the UK pays in less for European research than it actually gets back suggests that there will be a significant loss to the UK research industry after Brexit. Of course, foreign-born academics will follow the money. Today, the UK Home Office has been less than helpful to Scotland in retaining the high quality of foreign-born academics that we need to keep our research and development industry at the forefront of world achievement. Miles Briggs. I thank the member for taking this intervention. I, along with committee members from the Health and Sport Committee visited the Golden Jubilee and saw the excellent facilities there. What they told us was that, as much as this is around medical staff recruitment, which is the responsibility of his Government, I wonder if he had any comments around that, given the shortage that we have in specialists. Gil Paterson. I think that you are trying to conflate two things into something, because clearly at the Golden Jubilee, if you let me finish this, you will see the impact that this is already having. I am just going on to explain a bit further an individual from my constituency the damage that is likely to happen in the future. Last year, the same constituent Dr Kevin Parsons, a Canadian-born academic at Glasgow University, came face to face with the mindless and insensitive bureaucracy that is the Home Office. Dr Parsons came to Scotland under his wife's UK ancestry visa in 2012. When she applied for UK citizenship, Dr Parsons was advised to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. That would now require to continue his work. His application was refused on a technicality. At Glasgow University, Dr Parsons managed a research group, which employed two highly educated researchers, including three proscrades working for their PhDs. Dr Parsons attracted external research funding, which paid for the whole research group. That both enhanced Glasgow University's research reputation and assisted with the university's finances in general. To make things worse, a few weeks earlier, Dr Parsons had received £1.3 million grant from the UK Government to continue his research and, at the same time, threatened his right to stay in Scotland. Fortunately, after a substantial public outcry, Dr Parsons was granted indefinite leave to remain. That example of the Home Office and competence could have resulted in closure of the biodiversity research group at Glasgow University, the loss of substantial research funding in Scotland, the loss of three well-paid and highly skilled research jobs, the loss of study opportunities for three post-grad students, the deportation of a young family who have much to offer Scotland, and that is only just one project. All of which would have harmed Scottish society and that this incompetence happened before Brexit. With a no-deal result on Brexit negotiations, the prospects for international research collaboration and the Scottish research industry will be sorely damaged. With a no-deal Scotland, we will lose significant EU funding, international medical research funding, worldwide reputation for excellence research and academic achievement, post-graduate opportunities, the ability to properly staff our hospitals and our research establishments and much more. It is essential, therefore, that the UK remains in the customs union and the single market after Brexit. That is the only way, Presiding Officer, that Scotland's research industry will be able to survive at its present level. Alexander Stewart, followed by John Mason. I am very pleased to be able to take part in today's debate on the future of Scotland's international research collaborations, because the sector has done so much already and we should be rightly proud of what it has achieved to date and will continue to achieve in the future. Scotland is renowned for its innovative scientific research and much of the success has been a result of international collaborations, both individuals and institutions, with EU members and from around the world. I can look at my region across Mid Scotland and Fife and see so much that has been achieved and is being achieved within some of those institutions. I pay tribute to many of them who are world-leading in that sector and I am confident that that will continue once we leave the EU. While EU funding is, of course, very important and very much welcome, we should note that the £105 million that Scottish universities received from EU in 2016-17 accounts for 13.5 per cent of the total research income. In fact, the vast majority of research funding came from UK sources totaling a value of £630 million. That is a massive contribution and that happens because we are seen as having such high regard for the facilities that we have and, as I have said, that will continue. The UK Government has been able to provide some welcome reassurances to research institutions by committing and to guarantee research funding that will already be there and it is promised until 2020. The UK Government has made a living on the financial settlement—Jose? It is not set that 2020 is that far ahead. Alexander Stewart is not set that way. I am well aware that 2020 is not that far ahead. However, the question is whether we can see the success in our event and will continue moving forward. As I said, moreover, the financial settlement that has been agreed between the UK and European Commission, both the UK and the EU, have agreed that the eligibility of UK researchers and businesses in participation in horizon twilty will remain unchanged for the duration of the programme. While that is indeed very good news in the short term until 2020, we need to ensure that we continue to have strong working relationships with research institutions in the EU after 2020. The very point that the member makes is that we will continue to do that. There is every possibility that we will continue and we will have the participation in the programme as a third country, just as many non-EU countries do at the current horizon 2020 programme. That needs to become a reality. We need to ensure that we have that safeguard in place to ensure that after 2020, that becomes a reality. Moreover, in the white paper for the future relationship with the EU Union and the UK, the UK Government proposed close co-operation between the UK and the EU on scientific research and co-operation of accords. Those seem to continue to participate in the UK's research funding programme and will allow us to continue to have that co-operation on networks, on institutions, on infrastructures, on agencies and on regulators, where there is mutual benefit to the UK and the EU. It is, of course, incredibly important that the best and brightest researchers from the EU are able to be here and from other parts around the world. We can look at what we have achieved so far in having those individuals who are here who make a massive contribution to those facilities. They will continue that. Currently, 19 per cent of researchers in Scotland are from the EU and 16 are from other parts of the world, so there is an opportunity for that to continue to grow and that to continue to blossom. It is also reassuring to hear that the UK Government has been able to confirm that EU citizens' rights of residency after Brexit will be guaranteed, which includes as many researchers who are already here. We are attempting to ensure that safeguards are already in place before we get to ensure that that does take place. That is what we require to see and I am confident that, as we go forward, we will ensure that that is very much the case. We need to look at the visa system that we have allowed for universities to secure the highest calibre of researchers within those institutions. I would call on the UK Government to keep that in mind as we shape a new immigration system following the departure of the EU. I would like to continue some progress. We in the Scottish Conservatives recognise the incredible value that scientific research makes to a world-leading sector, and we must continue to be that world-leading sector. We have already heard that we punch above our way here in Scotland, and that has very much been the case. As I said, I know that that will continue because we have individuals, organisations and institutions who want to ensure that that takes place. We understand the importance of getting a good deal for the European Union to ensure that continued international research co-operation and collaborations do take place. I am confident that the UK Government will achieve that as we move forward. The benefits economically, the benefits socially and the benefits culturally are considerable, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I support the amendment in Oliver Mundell's name. We seem to have debated Brexit in the chamber and in committees for a fairly long time. However, like it or not, we still need to focus on the implications, both of the actual barriers that may spring up but also the impact on reputation, which is important, too. Sadly, that kind of impact in our universities and wider science and research communities was not carefully considered before the EU referendum vote. Like other areas, it has become increasingly clear at both the economy and rec committees that I am on that many sectors, including today's, are being seriously impacted by Brexit. Whatever the intentions of the people voting for Brexit were, the message has gone out and continues to go out that the UK is isolationist and does not welcome foreigners. Freedom of movement is probably the key factor for today's debate and several people have mentioned it already. We want students to come here and study while we want our students to go to the best institutions around the world. We want top academics and researchers to make their home here or, at least, to freely move around the world and around universities, including our own. Miles Briggs For that intervention, I think that we would all agree with that. Where does he then square that view with regard to Scottish medical students? As things stand today under his Government, only 50 per cent of Scots are getting to study medicine at Scottish medical schools down from 75 per cent since his party came to power. John Mason Still, with visas and all the rest of it, be it for medical students or any other students, that is still controlled, as I understand it by the Home Office. We certainly want more foreign students to come here, as well as our students should be able to study overseas. It is clear that Scotland's universities, as others have said, and their research is very much at the top end. 77 per cent of Scotland's university research is deemed as world-leading or internationally excellent. Both Richard Lochhead and Ian Gray have referred to figures such as that nine of Scotland's universities are ranked in the top 200 and that Scotland is second in the world for top universities per head of population only marginally after Switzerland. Many examples have been given of funding, one being the horizon 2020 case study of the European prevention of Alzheimer's dementia. The University of Edinburgh is involved with public and private sector organisations across Europe. At UK level 2, there has been great benefit from EU research projects. From 2007 to 2013, the UK contributed some £5.4 billion and got back some £8.8 billion. Comments from Glasgow's five medical schools are telling that chances to lead international collaborations and clinical trials could be lost so our world-class reputation could suffer. It is not just about funding, they say. It concerns about connectivity and addressing major healthcare questions via multi-populations could be lost. There is potential jeopardy of networks and collaborations that take years to formulate. We are already seeing a loss of leadership in research collaborations since the Brexit vote, as others have mentioned. We can thank the Royal Society of Edinburgh for their briefing for today's debate, and they argue along similar lines. They talk about the complementarity of UK and EU research funding system, having made the UK an excellent place to have a research career. They emphasise that it is necessary for the UK to attract and retain the highest-quality staff from across the globe, as well as continuing to develop the domestic skills base. Tavish Scott mentioned figures such as 18 per cent of academic staff in Scotland are from the EU, 31 per cent in total are non-UK, and in particular engineering and technology, that rises to 46 per cent. 22 per cent of students at Scottish universities are international students. The RSE also makes the point that researchers and innovators want and need to work with the best in their field. Even if the UK Government maintains funding for UK research, we would still lose full UK participation in EU programmes, especially the benefits of collaborative activity and the critical mass that the EU gives. They call for full participation in horizon 2020 and horizon Europe, but warn that associated status for the UK might be the only option. That is very uncertain and unpredictable territory. They also seek a proportionate and flexible immigration policy, taking into account the needs and circumstances of the devolved nations. As we have discussed here before, the RSE considers that students should be removed from the net migration target and the post-study work visa should be available for international students at universities. To move on to a specific sector, I wanted to mention the space industry in Scotland and particularly Glasgow's satellite sector. Scotland's space industry is reckoned to generate around £1 billion for the economy and supports 20,000 jobs. Glasgow produces more satellites than any other city outside the USA. Scotland's first satellite was only launched four years ago by Clyde Space, while we also have Alba Orbital and Spire global operating in the city. The Strathclyde Space Institute is at the University of Strathclyde, and it currently has seven H2020 projects, with a total value of €25 million. The European Space Agency is distinct from the European Union, so the UK could leave the European Union and remain a member of the European Space Agency. However, my understanding is that it would not be eligible to participate in programmes funded by the EU, so that would be a problem. Presiding Officer, if I have no leeway, then I shall finish. Thank you very much, Mr Mason. Claire Baker, followed by Maureen Watt. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate this afternoon. Many of us have universities in our constituencies and regions, and I have St Andrews University and the University of Stirland. I graduated with a degree from University of Edinburgh before getting a doctorate with University of Glasgow, and my undergraduate roommate was from America, and I studied for a PhD alongside a student from Turkey. We have seen that, despite being a small country in terms of population, we have an impressive number of excellent universities and research institutions that attract talent from overseas. We have seen the ability for Scotland to lead on research and innovation and to work in a collaborative manner with other universities, especially those in the European Union and Scotland punches above its weight. In December 2017, Universities UK highlighted the vital contribution that EU staff make to UK universities with their bright minds campaign. It included a collection of case studies highlighting the research and stories of leading EU academics, including in Scotland, working in UK universities. It illustrated the world-class research carried out by European staff in the UK and how that could be hindered by further Brexit uncertainty. Today's debate focuses on scientific excellence. In 2015-16, 59 per cent of EU staff worked in departments defined by HESA as science, engineering or technology—all positive areas for growth in our economy. I am sure that academics and members' regions have been raising these concerns and that the chamber this afternoon is well aware of the potential impact of Brexit on our higher and further education sector. Many of the speakers today also took part in the debate held by the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee following our inquiry into Erasmus Plus. Despite the fact that the debate took place in May and we have seen continuous negotiations since then, many of the concerns still apply today. The future of Erasmus Plus along with Horizon Europe will have a significant impact on our further and higher institutions and our leading research institutions. The committee's report into Erasmus Plus found that many organisations and sectors are particularly reliant on the funding and opportunities that the programme provides. Losing the ability to participate could have a significant impact. The committee found that the department for exiting the European Union had failed to produce any analysis into the role and value of Erasmus Plus. In light of the lack of activity from the UK Government, we therefore urged the Scottish Government to consider such analysis for Scottish institutions and explore the possibility of using existing structures, such as Education Scotland or British Council Scotland, to develop a framework for continued participation beyond 2020. I note that the Conservative amendment today highlights the decision taken by the Prime Minister to commit to continued membership of Erasmus Plus until 2020, but that is only a year's extension. Our universities have to be able to commit to forward planning beyond that. I hope that the minister can outline what work the Government has undertaken to explore other options during its closing remarks. There is no doubt that, just as Brexit risks the future for Erasmus Plus, so too does it risk the ability and ease with which collaborative research is carried out. Horizon 2020 funding accounts for hundreds of projects across 89 collaborating countries and more than 2,000 organisations. Scottish HEIs receive 13 per cent of the UK share and it accounts for 9 per cent of our total research funding. That funding is vital and we must find ways to continue to contribute to and benefit from its successor programme, Horizon Europe. Universities Scotland makes it clear that if Scotland is to retain its outstanding reputation for delivering world-class research with worldwide impact, then membership of Horizon Europe is essential. It must go beyond simply being members. It must be about informing the programme's development and ensuring that our universities and researchers are able to take advantage of the grants, the networks and the data that are available. That will be difficult as we become a third partner. Until we have a deal, or at least guarantees from Westminster and Brussels of the UK's continued involvement, there is, as with Erasmus, limited scope for our universities to be able to forward plan. We also must heed the warning of leading academics, who last month wrote an open letter of the dire consequences that is facing Scottish higher education with Brexit. Brexit and, in particular, the ending of free movement risked the already well-established co-operation opportunities open to academics, researchers, students and scientists. Moreover, as much as our students want to go to Milan or Barcelona to learn and work, students from across Europe see Scotland as a popular destination of choice and want to come here to learn in our renowned and respected universities and research facilities. We should not be closing a door on the collaborative work that can drive research and benefit the country of the whole. Last week, Professor Alan Manning, chair of the UK Government's Migration Advisory Committee, gave evidence to the Culture Committee. I have to say that it did not fill me with confidence. In the group's recent report on international students, they lay out in no uncertain terms the impact of Brexit on students in our universities, stating that they do not see any upside for the sector and leave in the EU. Any barriers to student mobility are likely to have a negative impact. It is therefore disappointing, despite acknowledging that, that the MAC explicitly called for the UK Government not to introduce a separate post-study work visa. The Feshtal initiative, introduced by Jack McConnell and the Labour-led executive, had a clear positive impact on student recruitment and retention. I was part of the cross-party group that was brought together by the then-Minister Humza Yousaf that recently lobbied the UK Government for its reintroduction. We were united in that approach. We were clear that, due to Scotland's slower population growth, it needs to expand our workforce and the existing skills shortages in certain sectors that providing opportunities for non-EU international graduates in Scotland is vital. The ending of free movement for EU students would make that even more acute. According to University Scotland, over 12 per cent of staff from Scotland's HEIs and 16 per cent of their postgraduate research population are from the EU. Scotland's EU workforce is young and concentrated in academic roles, particularly in science. For just in closing, I would like to say that the Migration Advisory Committee chair last week talked about the UK Government's ambition for a high-skills, high-wage economy. To achieve that, surely knowledge exchange and increasing intellectual capacity is key and success in that area relies on international engagement. The needs of the university and research sectors must be listened to and positively responded to if we are not to avoid damaging such an important sector. Maureen Watt, followed by Rachel Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also welcome Richard Lochhead to his new role. In July 2017, a report from the Centre for Cities at the London School of Economics found that Aberdeen could be the worst-hit city in the UK as a result of Brexit. Their analysis concluded that, under a hard Brexit, economic output will go down by 3.7 per cent, or under a soft Brexit will be reduced by 2.1 per cent. While just over 61 per cent of the people of Aberdeen voted to remain in the EU, that is the stark reality facing my constituents, because Scotland is being taken out of the EU against its will. Mr Mundell, I know where my interests lie. It is with my constituents. The University of Aberdeen, which, over the years, has built a strong reputation as a research-intensive university with a strong international outlook, says that it is, and I quote, extremely concerned about the impact that Britain's exit from the European Union will have on our research, student recruitment and the learning experience that we offer. Obviously, the possibility of a no-deal Brexit heightens the risks further. In February 2018, the then-principal and vice-chancellor, Sir Ian Diamond, stated at a Westminster reception that the UK Government needs to clarify the rights of higher education EU citizens and their families to live and work in the UK, but not just for lecturers, but also for other higher education staff such as language assistants and technicians. We are now in November and edge closer to a no-deal outcome as each day passes. We have no further idea of what the future brings for EU nationals living in our communities. The issue of citizenship and the right to remain, of course, extends beyond people who study or work in higher education. Like myself, I am sure that other MSPs in this chamber have had EU nationals contacting their offices seeking advice about Brexit. My constituency office window is full of adverts for upcoming EU citizenship events and is regularly updated as new events are announced. Tavish Scott mentioned Tory Marine laboratory very near my constituency office, which has many Europeans among its staff. As a result of Brexit, higher education institutions stand to lose talented students, devoted staff and vital access to EU funding programmes such as Horizon 2020, now known as Horizon Europe. On the latter point, retaining access and membership of Horizon Europe was described as essential by University of Scotland and should be a priority for the UK Government according to the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I myself was involved some years ago on the Gilded project through the James Haddon Institute, which Tavish Scott also mentioned, which has one of its sites in my constituency. That was a pan-European project that involved collaborating with institutions in Poland and the Netherlands. We are all feel for the uncertainty that is already damaging. In the event that access to such funding is lost, I understand that the UK is continuing to lobby the UK Government to set up contingency plans for replacing it. Perhaps the UK Government could use some of the supposed £350 million a week savings that was emblazoned on the leaf buses to help in that, but I am not holding my breath. We can be proud that nine of Scotland's universities are in the global top 200 for international outlook, demonstrating our appeal to students and academics from across the world. As a result of Brexit, our universities stand to lose both the opportunity to collaborate with other universities across Europe and lose students who are worried about their rights to study here. UKAS statistics have noted that EU students coming to Scotland fell by 10 per cent in 2017. Who can blame them for being worried about the implications of Brexit and what it could mean for their right to study at our universities? It sends out the wrong message that they are unwelcome when the truth is that Scotland has always welcomed EU citizens and beyond with open arms. Ross Greer and others mentioned the importance of the Erasmus programme, which was championed by Winnie Ewing when she was a member of the European Parliament. I can say that my daughter benefited hugely from her year abroad and is now bilingual and working in Paris. I brought my children up to believe that the world was their oyster. Little did I believe that I would be telling them a lie. Our loss is other European universities gain. The UCL Centre for Global Higher Education reported that it became evident in February 2018 that European universities have used the uncertainty of Brexit to poach UK-based academics, with Germany in particular standing to benefit. Their report notes that Germany sees Brexit as a window of opportunity to attract UK-based researchers. Ironic, is it not, considering the relentless promises of opportunities of Brexit that we hear from the Conservative Government? The real opportunities could be grasped by remaining in the European single market and the customs union. It would avert the need to consider any sort of contingency planning to protect our valued educational institutions from the damaging consequences of Brexit. Instead, not only is our higher education sector facing threats but, as we now know, the very being of the Scottish Parliament is being threatened by the shameful Tory Westminster Government. We have heard so much today about the vital work that our UK and Scottish research institutions carry out. It is world-leading. From the Fraunhofer Institute at the University of Strathclyde to the First International Max Planck Institute partnerships, Scotland has a long history. We have heard it from all our members today and reputation of scientific prowess with the potential to be so much more in the future. Those benches welcome the recent news that Glasgow will be the home to the 15.8 million artificial intelligence health research centre as part of the UK Government's plan to utilise the AI in the healthcare sector. It is a major boost for Scotland's life sciences sector and the industrial centre for artificial intelligent research and digital diagnostics to be known as iCaired. It will examine how AI can enable better patient diagnosis, treatment and outcomes. Anna Dominic-Zack, vice principal and head college of medical veterinary and life sciences at the University of Glasgow, said that the formation of iCaired is a great coup for Scotland and its people and further positions Scotland's ability to be a global leader in precision medicine. The iCaired epitomises our triple helix approach to healthcare innovation and precision medicine by developing research and innovation concurrently in industry, the NHS and academia. It goes on to say that by locating at the clinical innovation zone at Queen Elizabeth University hospital alongside partners in the industry and the NHS, iCaired will also drive open innovation and encourage further industry collaborations. We are all proud of the reputation of the research that Scotland's institutions conducts and produce. 77 per cent of Scotland's university research is deemed world-leading or internationally excellent. In addition to this, 85.9 per cent of Scottish research is judged to have an outstanding or very considerable impact on the economy, society and culture beyond academia. The motion today highlights the challenges that we face but also fails to acknowledge perhaps the great potential and positivity that we all must work towards as we move towards leaving the European Union. It has been mentioned before. We all know that until the date when the UK leaves the EU, we have the reassurance that we remain a member state with all the rights and obligations that that entails. That means that the UK entities are eligible to participate in all aspects of the horizon 2020 programme until we leave the EU. John Mason mentioned that it is not long until 2020. Moving forward, we need to support a deal specifically for this sector. Looking forward to the future, it is also significant that the UK Government has signalled commitment for our country and the world through our goal to increase UK research and development spending to 2.4 per cent of GDP by 2027. Just to reiterate the point about our commitment to horizon 2020 funding, it was mentioned by Alistair Jarvis, who is chief executive of the University of UK. He backed that commitment and said that the extension of the UK Government's underwrite until the end of the horizon 2020 programme is welcome news. I think that we all welcome it. However, he also mentioned that it is guaranteed even if there is a no-deal scenario, which of course we do not want, and we want everyone to get behind a UK Government deal and behind the Prime Minister. Moving on, the UK Government has proposed post-Brexit co-operation between the UK and the EU in the sciences. The UK Government's white paper on our future relationship with the EU includes science and innovation among the areas that will be covered by co-operative accords to replace our current relationship with the EU. As we leave the EU, inevitably freedom of movement will end. However, the UK Government has made it clear that a flexible system will be put in place to attract the brightest and the best research students and researchers. Nevertheless, no matter what members on the other side of the chamber try to spin or put a negative angle on, we know that EU citizens' rights of residence after Brexit are guaranteed. Let us be clear about it. The UK Government has introduced the settled status scheme, so EU citizens will have that right and can remain in the UK after 2020. I will finish this point if you do not mind, and then I will take the intervention. The UK Government is also proposing the continuation of cultural exchange programmes for students and the creation of a UK-EU mobility scheme. John Swinney earlier mentioned the post-work visa scheme, and it is something that Liz Smith has been championing. We have not had a definitive no, but we would like to continue to support that. I will take Joan McAlpine's intervention. I thank the member for taking my intervention. She has given assurances that her colleagues have on the status of EU citizens, but why, then, has the submission of the University of Scotland to the Parliament's European Committee raised so many questions about the status of EU citizens? Clearly, the University of Scotland is not convinced by those reassurances. Rachael Hamilton. I mean perhaps they have not actually read about the settled status. Well, honestly, it is absolutely, and it has been said time and time again that there is a settled status, and that will be a reassurance to those people that they will be able to stay in the UK post Brexit. I just want to say on that point also that we have got to be careful within the scientific research roles. There are many people from the European Union here. There is 19 per cent. We have also got about 67 per cent from the rest of the UK. We need to look at how we make sure that we have lots and lots of excellent, the brightest and the best researchers and that we continue to get behind that, not only from the rest of the UK but from the EU and non-EU countries. What we can do is absolutely get behind that. I think that Joan McAlpine should be reassuring the Scottish universities as well on that point. In my closing remarks, I want to reiterate the point that Brexit is not the end point of the UK and Scotland's great scientific research, and as the Government motion suggests, the negativity and lack of cooperation from this Government on Brexit matters is stifling the progress of what Scotland and the UK can achieve. The interventions that we receive continually from backbenchers are so negative. It is a grievance agenda, and it is just not a positive approach to look at it. We have such potential here. We have the brightest and the best, but we want to attract more, and it is just shame that the SNP cannot see that. Thank you very much. We move now to closing speeches. I call on Tavish Scott to be followed by Ian Gray. I am not sure that too many on the Conservative benches have read the briefings that came from the University of Scotland and from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, or indeed from the individual institutions, the number that Joan McAlpine mentioned, who has been giving evidence to the European Committee in preparation for the debate. However, it would do them well to do so. However, to help Miles Briggs, because I suspect that Brole Miles has got to do the wind-up for the Conservative benches today, I dug out the Edinburgh University statistics, given that he is one of our Lothian members. Of course, Edinburgh University has participated in more than 300 European collaborative projects and, in the current year, has received something in the order of £403 million for a new research grant. That is European Union research grants. Since 1987, the University has sent more than 12,000 students to Europe. I am sure that, in his wind-up, Mr Briggs will consider the impact on Edinburgh University—never mind her at what—or Napier, Edinburgh University or the others that are here in the capital city of Scotland. Daniel Johnson Is that list that not only are those records notable, but Edinburgh is one of the biggest recipients, not just in Scotland of European research funding, but in the whole of the UK. Tavish Scott Her endless modesty, Edinburgh University, does not mention that in her briefing note, but I will entirely take Daniel Johnson's point on that. Two points that I want to make briefly to the Conservative benches are that there has been some mention of an inability to look way beyond 2020. I thought to begin with that was a wonderful new pitch for a new timescale on the transition period earlier on. However, the point about 2020 is the horizon project. There is nothing guaranteed post 2020 whatsoever, and that is why Edinburgh University and others have been able to garner the extent of research funding that they have over the years. It is not the guarantee of funding until 2020. It is what happens after that. Anyone who asks questions about this area finds out in a minute. Anyone who asks questions of universities and finds out about this finds out that the time that it takes to put these projects together is now until 2020. That is the danger that Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK's academic institutions face. If Jamie Greene is going to answer that, I will happily give way. Jamie Greene And thanks to Mr Scott. You are right. We do need to look beyond 2020. I know that the UK minister on this made an announcement recently that he is having a very active and positive discussion with the EU about it. I think that the question is around how much the UK should pay into it and what access it will get in return. It is a very valid negotiation to have in the context of it, but I am enthused that there is a positive conversation happening after 2020. We will all look forward to that. Academics and the student body are part of a society most in favour of a rational evidence-based opportunity to explore and then test the merits of whatever deal emerges from the Brexit negotiations. Parliament can, of course, today support that position. Today could be a significant moment for the Scottish Parliament and the UK-wide campaign to stop a calamitous Brexit. On three previous occasions, only those benches have voted for a referendum on the terms of the deal. Today that outcome could be very different indeed. I welcome the support of the SNP and the Greens, and there are more and more senior figures in other parties adding their voice to indeed amongst the Conservatives. We have notable figures such as the former Prime Minister John Major, Justin Greening, Heidi Allen and Sarah Woolaston—not many obsessives there, I suggest. We also know that the overwhelming majority of Labour supporters in Scotland do not agree with a pro-Brexit policy. Senior figures such as Sadiq Khan, Chukka Anuna and Ian Murray have led that charge, and I know that there are many reasonable people on the Labour benches here today who consider that position needs to change as well. There is a very real momentum now and a demonstrable shift in attitudes in every corner of the UK. Last month, we witnessed the second biggest public demonstration in Britain in the last century—700,000 people. Can I finish these points? 700,000 people only surpassed by the protest against the Iraq war. Nobody voted for the current chaos. They are entitled to have their final say on that deal whenever London and Brussels conclude it. That is what should happen and Parliament should vote for that today. Many academics think that their MSP should be doing exactly that, which brings me to the examples that we have made today in a range of areas, particularly on the immigration system. Joan McAlpine, Ross Greer and a number of others mentioned the UK Migration Advisory Committee of the UK Government and its recommendations, but the point that the RSE makes in its briefing today, which I think is important and bears close examination on the point that Jamie Greene makes about trying to find a way forward, is that they have strongly pushed in collaboration or in support of many parliamentary committees, both in London and in Edinburgh, that the UK Government should remove student migration from the net migration target to make it clear that it wants talent to come to the UK. Coupled with that, it should reintroduce the post-study work visa for international students at all universities. Taking those actions together would alleviate the tension between the UK Government's commitment to reduce net migration and its ambition to ensure that the UK Government remains a hub for international talent. We all await that outcome. Many have been pushing for that for some considerable time and we are long overdue a very sensible outcome to what is an answerable case supporting both academic institutions and the student bodies here in Scotland but also right across the UK. I wanted to reflect on two comments that are specifically made in the Nobel laureates letter that I mentioned earlier on. The first is that they say in their letter to the Prime Minister that Europe was the home of the Enlightenment and the birthplace of modern science, but partly as a result of two devastating wars in Europe, it suffered a relative decline. They also then go on to argue how that has changed and how the benefits that have come through the EU in terms of the collaboration have rather inhibiting progress led to great advances in science and in the opportunities that are therefore available to the economy and to the wider public of the community. Those seem to me very strong arguments and on that basis it seems to me unanswerable that this case continues to be made. As expected, we have heard this afternoon lots of examples of how successful Scotland is in science. Research in the excellence of our universities, Dr Clare Baker, demonstrated how she epitomises that excellence in her own stellar qualifications. She also pointed out an important European project, which is sometimes missed in those debates, and that is Erasmus Plus and others have mentioned too how important that is. Ross Greer made it clear that colleges participate in European-wide collaborations as well as universities. Gil Paterson made an important point about the Golden Jubilee hospital and how those kinds of institutions are also engaged in international collaborative cutting-edge research. The debate that we have this afternoon is not just about our universities, Presiding Officer. It is much wider than that. We did have at one stage quite an entertaining diversion into a debate on obsession, where Mr Mundell posited Mr Scott's obsession with people's vote. He responded with the obsession of Jacob Rees-Mogg and some of Mr Mundell's other colleagues's obsession with Brexit. I talked a little about social scientists as well as scientists. One of our great social scientists was Adam Smith, who once said that science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. I hope that that is true, that science can be part of the antidote to the rather poisonous enthusiasm for Brexit of the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and indeed Boris Johnson, or the superstition of the highly dubious claims that some of his colleagues have made about the benefits of Brexit, more in what spoke earlier about some of those. In that, lies the problem, Presiding Officer, with the Tory contribution this afternoon and their motion. Mr Mundell spoke in all sincerity, I am sure, of his desire for a smooth and orderly Brexit, and that is the thrust of the Tory motion. The trouble is, Mr Mundell, that there appears to be no such thing. Mr Stewart talked about his confidence that there would be every possible continuation of participation and collaboration in research, but Mr Stewart, no-one has any confidence in that continued participation. Oliver Mundell. I thank Mr Gray for giving way. Does he not recognise that if the UK Labour Party and the House of Commons seriously got behind Theresa May's approach to build a consensus, then we would be in a stronger position to deliver certainty? I absolutely do not, because Theresa May's approach to Brexit has been a catastrophe. I will say more about that later. Rachel Hamilton complained to the Government benches about the negativity of their motion, which we will support. I have to say to Ms Hamilton that I bowed to nobody in my scepticism of the Scottish Government, but even I cannot stretch it to say that the problem with Brexit is its negativity about the Brexit deal. The problem, Mr Stewart, is the lack of confidence in our scientific community and what is happening. Gillian Martin pointed out that he does not know what kind of Brexit he is looking at. Mr Scott pointed out that only 3 per cent of the scientific community feel they have been listening to him in any way at all. John McAlpine and David Stewart gave us exact illustrations of damage that has already happened through the experience of the UHI and a fall in funding. The problem, Mr Mundell, is that nobody believes that this Tory Government can or is delivering a smooth and orderly Brexit. That really is our difficulty with the Liberal Democrat amendment 2. I personally find the idea of a people's vote very attractive, and many colleagues do, as Mr Scott has said, but I have to say that I find the idea of a general election and the prospect and opportunity to get rid of that shambolic Conservative Government entirely responsible for the whole sorry mess of Brexit and their utterly incompetent two years of so-called negotiation, which is and will do damage to our science and research base here in Scotland and so much else behind. That general election remains Labour Party's preference to find a way out of this mess that is created by that Conservative Government. I am pleased to close today's debate for the Scottish Conservatives. Let me first, on a positive note, like Oliver Mundell, join colleagues from across all parties in this chamber who have commended the excellent work of Scotland's scientists and researchers, and the massive contribution that science, innovation and research make to our Scottish economy. That is especially so in my Lothian region, with its vibrant life sciences sector, which underpins many jobs locally. Earlier this year, I visited Edinburgh's genomics at the Roslyn Institute and was able to see their clinical facility and the gene sequencing labs that they have there. The work being undertaken by Professor Bruce Whitelaw and his team is truly inspiring and has massive potential in the future, which means that Scotland is today well placed to play a leading role in both exploiting and showing the world the potential for genetic technologies to make significant impacts on health provision. All of us, I believe, need to get behind championing the work of those pioneering scientists, and today we have heard that from some members. Rachel Hamilton, Jamie Greene and Alexander Stewart specifically took the opportunity in this debate to do that in their own areas. Any new political deal with the EU, and I have confidence that we will see a comprehensive deal emerge in the next few weeks, may provide the short-term challenges around this funding, system that we have outlined today. The UK Government is committed to work with industry and academia to resolve those issues and support those sectors. Indeed, as Oliver Mundell outlined, the UK Government early in the withdrawal process guaranteed funding for UK research projects, otherwise supported by the EU until 2020. The UK Government is continuing to look at how we can support research posts after 2020. A number of members have spoken about horizon 2020 specifically, and I think that it is an important point on some of the benches that we have been working around. I wondered in terms of the SNP what their white paper had looked at when they were putting forward the case for Scotland to leave the UK and leave the EU. Specifically, it says this point—there is a lovely picture of Dolly the sheep, but not much detail—but it says this, and I think that it is important for this debate. Our universities are already active players on the world stage, extending their world-class teaching, offering and forming partnerships and research collaborations across the globe. We are keen to further develop these collaborations as a sovereign nation state to promote Scottish higher education overseas. I do not see anything in that which the UK Government is not doing to do the exact same today. Instead of spreading the doom and gloom that we have heard today, the SNP and the Scottish Government should be making a similar commitment to back these important sectors. Look at what they can do to help to send out their message globally that Scotland and our United Kingdom are open for business and want to see more research, development and innovation take place here. The fundamentals of our research and science sectors remain strong, not least as we have a high concentration of world-class universities such as Edinburgh, Napier and Herriot-Watt here in Edinburgh, providing highly skilled graduates if Scots can actually get into their universities, as I have outlined from a number of members with regard to our medical degrees. Scotland's life science sector is a key part of our international reputation for scientific excellence and our pharmaceutical industry. It is an important element that I want to speak about. I very much welcome the recently published Fraser of Allander Institute report into the economic contribution of the pharmaceutical industry here in Scotland. That showed that the industry supports a total of £2.5 billion worth of industrial output in Scotland, and that exports of manufactured pharmaceutical products contributed £462 million to the Scottish economy and helped to underpin 5,000 jobs across our country. Every 100 jobs in the wider pharmaceutical sector support an additional 240 jobs elsewhere in the Scottish economy. Concerns are already being expressed about the falling levels of business spending on research and development in Scotland. S&P ministers have already fudged previous targets that they made themselves to set a growth in the life science sector, so clearly more to be done to encourage more investment. We have ideas in action on how to actually achieve that. One thing S&P ministers could and should do is to take forward action to ensure that data-capturing capabilities do not slip back further than they already have here. That means linking primary and secondary care data so that clinical trials can take place here in Scotland in the exact same similar basis that trials are taking place today, such as JSK's Southford Lungs study in England. That is a major issue for pharma companies across Scotland, and I hope that the minister and I welcome him to his position today. We will take seriously and look at making sure that Scotland does not fall behind the rest of the United Kingdom in some of those areas. Scotland's research and scientific base are a real success story, and I hope that today was about celebrating that. Scottish Conservatives value hugely the contribution of our scientists and our researchers. While we accept that Brexit may in future change some of the funding streams, we are confident that the UK Government and the Scottish Government, if it steps up to the plate, can work positively with industry and academia to put in place the new schemes that will grow the value of these sectors and further boost our international reputation in the future. We on these benches believe that the best days of Scotland's researchers and scientists actually lie ahead of them and Scotland. For Tavish Scott's points, as someone with Shetland fishing interests, he may be just forgot to mention the fact that last week we learned of the support and the boost to Scotland's fishing industry when the UK Government announced a pledge of extra £12 million to develop and support cutting-edge fishing technologies and safety measures with £10 million to establish an innovation fund. UK research and innovation will establish that fund to ensure that the UK is a world leader in safe, sustainable and productive fishing. Scotland can and must be a world leader in fisheries research, and we on these benches are committed to doing just that. To conclude, at some point, and this debate has really demonstrated that this point, SNP ministers are going to actually have to get behind Scotland and the United Kingdom in what is the most difficult political negotiation in a generation. The more the SNP talks down Scotland's science and innovations research sectors, the greater impact it can have on international companies looking today to invest in our country. Great countries come together to turn challenges into opportunities, and we should all be working on those benches to realise the potential of Scotland's research and scientific sectors to our Scottish economy. I support the amendment in my colleague Oliver Mundell's name. Thank you, and I call on Richard Lochhead to conclude the debate for the Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I very much welcome this debate and all the contributions from across the chamber, many of which, of course, I may well comment on. It reminds me that we want to pay tribute to our research community and our higher education institutions and other institutions in Scotland that make such an immense contribution to our economy and to developing knowledge and curiosity. I was thinking how there is one company in Forrest in my constituency. There are two people who work for a consultant called Aurora Consultancy. They are developing sustainable materials for fishboxes, which is a big issue in the world's oceans at the moment. One of the two people is Scottish, and the other person that runs the company is Italian. We have to remember that this is an issue in terms of the impact of Brexit on our research in this country. It is not just about higher education institutions and our research institutions. It is right across Scotland and Scotland's economy as well. There has been a lot of consensus in the debate about that contribution, and I very much welcome it. There has even been quite a lot of consensus around the chamber about protecting that contribution in terms of Brexit. That is a very important consensus that we have to all rally around in the very challenging months and potential years ahead. I think that it is really important that we maintain firstly the mobility of our researchers and staff to move around Europe and to Scotland and back and forth to Europe, and likewise to maintain our participation, our full participation in EU funding programmes moving forward as well. In terms of amendments, the SNP will today in the Scottish Government be supporting Tavish Scott and the Liberal Democrat amendment in terms of the people's vote. It is, of course, a democratic outrage that Scotland faces has been dragged out of the EU against their will, particularly what we were told by the no campaign in the independence referendum in 2014. People in Scotland voted to remain and another EU referendum would indeed be an opportunity to ensure the wishes of the people of this country are respected, and that is why we will support the amendment today. Of course, it is only but an opportunity, not a guarantee, and it would not necessarily protect Scotland from the same outcome as in 2016. Likewise, we will support the Labour Party amendment today, and that raises the issue of maintaining our participation horizon 2020 going forward, where Scotland has punched above our weight. We have secured 558 million euros over the current programme, and it is really important that we have full participation in the success of that programme moving forward. In terms of the complacency from the Conservative Party in terms of EU funding, if the withdrawal agreement is signed, the UK will continue to participate fully in EU programmes. Yes, Scottish organisations are eligible to participate in all aspects of horizon 2020, we are told, but until Brexit. The real big question is what happens thereafter. Even in terms of the deal that will be signed, there is still a lack of clarity around even our participation up to the end of horizon 2020. Those are very valuable funds of Scotland to sustain jobs and our ability to take part in collaborative research projects across the whole of Europe. The Scottish Government is going to continue to do a lot of work to highlight the impact of Brexit on this sector and Scottish research science innovation. There is a Brexit forum that we have with the higher education research sector. Also, I will be taking a delegation to London to meet the UK Government to highlight the importance of protecting it and, likewise, I will be taking a delegation hopefully soon from across the sector to Brussels to make our case to Brussels as well to continue to participate in many of those programmes. I think that it is a bit rich for Rachel Hamilton, who said that the only reason why the SNP is discussing this today is because of our grievance agenda. Will it be a bit rich for the party that is taking Scotland out of Europe against their will to talk to us about a grievance agenda? It is also a brass net for the Conservative Party to put forward the hard Brexit here, Oliver Mundell, to champion and lead for the Conservative Party in a debate about one of the sectors that is going to take one of the biggest hits from Brexit, which he voted for and which he supports. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way, but I think that it is pretty rich to come to this chamber and call me a hard Brexit here when his colleagues at Westminster refuse to say whether or not they will back a deal that will prevent a hard Brexit. It is the SNP who are determined to undermine the United Kingdom, they are determined to set us back and now they tell us today they want to delay Brexit by another year to have a rerun of an argument in a debate that has already been had and where they do not accept the result. For Oliver Mundell to accuse the SNP and the Scottish Government today of being negative by highlighting this issue in the Scottish Parliament, where it is going to have a negative impact, there is not one student, there is not one researcher, there is not one lecturer, there is not one member of the business community who thinks that we are going to be anything than worse off with Brexit, therefore it is going to have a negative impact and the Scottish Conservative Party should be telling the UK Government about that negative impact and stop it happening in the first place. We do need a lot of clarity over the settled status of EU nationals in Scotland today, this is a big issue in campuses around Scotland. Michael Russell, the Brexit minister today, was telling us how he visited the University of Stirling and he was speaking to the students there this morning about the anxiety or about a report that carried out into the impact of Brexit on the EU nationals who are studying the University of Stirling at the moment. The international students there feel anxious over the uncertainty generated by Brexit, they feel there has been a lack of information available to them, which is a barrier to their plans to stay in Scotland in the UK. They have highlighted the value of learning in a multicultural environment and expressed worry that Brexit might threaten this. This is what is really happening out there that the Scottish Conservative Party is really, really complacent about. We have to give certainty to EU students, to researchers and staff from Europe working, contributing to Scotland as soon as possible and the Conservative Party and the UK Government are not doing that at all. Indeed, for the Conservative Party today, we find everything all right when, in October, the UK Prime Minister said that her proposals will end freedom of movement once and for all in the UK. The development of new scientific approaches in Scotland is always dependent on free exchange of ideas between the researchers, regardless of their geography or political boundaries. That international collaboration is extremely important for Scotland, and it delivers for our economy. I met Dame Anne Glover from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the president, just a couple of days ago, and she handed me this document, which I then went and read. I recommend to members—it is called Science Scotland—it is published by Royal Society of Edinburgh. It is the issue 22 summer 2018 edition. What it does is it highlights nine of the most promising young companies in Scotland. This is about nine entrepreneurs who have emerged from Scotland's higher education sector in the main, and who are now starting up these companies that we have high hopes for to deliver jobs and innovation and research breakthroughs for the people of Scotland in the future. I was reading through about the entrepreneurs, and out of the nine, three are people who have moved from EU countries to live and work in Scotland and contribute to our country. Those are people who are going to face barriers in the future, and that is why the Brexit proposals in the UK Government are going to cause so much damage to our country. We need mobility and we need to be able to continue in those research programmes moving forward. I want to just finish by reiterating some of my opening remarks from today, but why this issue is so important to Scotland. I remind you that we employ proportionally more EU academic staff at our universities and institutions compared to the rest of the UK. We have proportionally more EU students compared to the rest of the UK. We have proportionally more outgoing domestic students participating in Erasmus Plus compared to the rest of the UK. We punch way above our weight in securing EU research funding compared to the rest of the UK. We have a higher rate of full-time research staff working at our universities from the EU compared to the rest of the UK. That is why this issue is so important. To finish, Iain Gray said that he was quoting Einstein and stupidity when he was speaking in the past. That reminded me that, at this time of year, in 1910, a general was asked whether there would be a world war in Europe. He said that it was inconceivable stupidity on the part of statesmen if such a scenario was to arise. Of course, we know what happened in 1914 and we were remembering that Sunday. However, we have the situation now. We have the stupidity of politicians in the Conservative Party and in the UK Government who have taken us to the brink of leaving the European Union, inflicting massive damage on our international reputation, on Scottish jobs, on research, on funding and, potentially, on the quality of life of the people of Scotland. We have to stop that happening. That is why I asked Parliament to back the motion today. Thank you very much. That concludes this afternoon's debate. Our next item of business is consideration of business motion 14657, in the name of Graeme Day, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme. I call on Graeme Day on behalf of the bureau to move the motion. Thank you very much. The question is that motion 14657 be agreed. Is everybody agreed? We are agreed. The next item of business is consideration of business motions 14658 and 14659, on stage 1 timetables for two bills. Does any member wish to speak against either motion? I call on Graeme Day to move the motions on behalf of the bureau. Thank you very much. No one indicates that they wish to speak against the motions. The question therefore is that motions 14658 and 14659 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The next item is consideration of three parliamentary bureau motions. I ask Graeme Day on behalf of the bureau to move motions 14660 on designation of a lead committee and 14661 and 14662 in approval of SSIs. We will turn now to decision time. The first question is the amendment 1468.1, in the name of Oliver Mundell, which seeks to amend motion 1468, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on safeguarding Scotland's international research collaborations and reputation for scientific excellence from the threat of Brexit, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 146838.1, in the name of Oliver Mundell, is yes, 28, no, 87. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is the amendment 146838.3, in the name of Ian Gray, which seeks to amend motion 1468, in the name of Richard Lochhead, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. The next question is the amendment 1468.2, in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend motion 1468, in the name of Richard Lochhead, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1468.2, in the name of Tavish Scott, is yes, 65, no, 30. There were 20 abstentions and the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that motion 146838, in the name of Richard Lochhead, as amended, on safeguarding Scotland's international research collaborations and reputation for scientific excellence from the threat of Brexit, be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 146838, in the name of Richard Lochhead, as amended, is yes, 66, no, 28. There were 21 abstentions. The motion as amended is therefore agreed. I propose to ask a single question on three parliamentary bureau motions. Does anyone object? No, that's good. The question is that motions 1460, 1461 and 14662, in the name of Graham Day, on behalf of the bureau, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business, in the name of Liam Kerr, on emergency service workers, and we will just take a few moments for ministers and the members to change seats.