|
Science and the Parliament
A members' business debate on motion S2M-1840, in the
name of Elaine Murray, on the science and the Parliament event that is being
held today.
The Deputy
Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion
S2M-1840, in the name of Elaine Murray, on the science and the Parliament
event that is being held today. The debate will be concluded without any
question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the Science and the Parliament 2004 event being
held on 10 November 2004, organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry in
association with Scotland's leading science organisations; notes the
contribution of Scotland's 40,000 scientists to our economic, environmental
and social development; notes that Scotland is a world leader in many
scientific disciplines; further notes the Scottish Executive's efforts to
foster an environment that enhances pupil and student participation in
science, to invest in the science infrastructure and equipment of our
educational establishments, to increase investment in research along with
supporting greater industrial research and assist in the practical
application of our world-beating research, and welcomes the review of the
Executive's A Science Strategy for Scotland.
The
Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
Yet again, we have had an informative and interesting debate and I join
members in congratulating Elaine Murray on securing it. As members who know
me will testify—certainly my party colleagues Elaine Murray, Bristow Muldoon
and Christine May will confirm this—I have a lifelong interest in science.
Indeed, it is a family interest, and I said as much at the recent
biotechnology industry dinner.
For me, responding to a parliamentary debate on the science agenda as part
of the annual science and the Parliament event is as good as it gets. The
Deputy First Minister will shortly address the event at Our Dynamic Earth
and members are cordially invited to go along and hear more about the recent
achievements of Scotland's scientists and to take the opportunity to meet
leading members of the scientific community. Elaine Murray, Bristow Muldoon
and I used to discuss these matters into the early hours of the morning, but
it is fair to say that we have never had such a distinguished and erudite
audience as we have for tonight's debate.
The science and the Parliament event is now firmly established in the
parliamentary calendar. As members have pointed out, Scotland has a
wonderful scientific tradition and it is right and proper that we continue
to celebrate our successes, raise the profile of science, and provide a
forum for scientists and MSPs to come together in this way. Lord James
Douglas-Hamilton was right to say that science is the torch that illuminates
the world. On a more parochial level, science is crucial to our future
success as a knowledge economy. Increased investment is essential to achieve
that aim, but we need to get that investment working as effectively as
possible and to encourage funding from the private sector. Alex Neil was
absolutely correct to point that out.
The UK Government's 10-year investment framework for science and innovation
committed the Government to sustained and strong growth in science
investment, which is of course welcome.
Brian Adam: I am delighted that the minister acknowledges that we have a
deficit in R and D investment in the private sector. What steps does he
think the Executive can take to encourage such investment, especially given
that Scotland tends to have a branch-factory type economy, which does not
rely heavily on R and D and we therefore lose out in relation to the
productivity gains, the science and the knowledge-based economy?
Allan Wilson: It is not all doom and gloom. It is certainly true that
Scottish businesses spend proportionately less on R and D than do businesses
in the rest of the UK, but the value of that investment almost doubled over
the five years from 1997 to 2002. That is not to say that we do not want
that value to increase even further in cash terms. One of the ways to
achieve that is to increase R and D—and, dare I say it, headquartering more
businesses here in Scotland is another means by which we might promote that
sort of activity. With our impressive track record of winning research
council funding, Scotland can be expected to gain disproportionately from
that process.
We should not see private sector funding and R and D in isolation from state
funding. In our spending review, we have provided what I think everyone will
agree is a significant increase in funding to the higher education sector—it
will be up by 23 per cent in real terms. We have to look at research funding
as a whole and not simply in the silos of private sector versus public
sector.
We can also report considerable progress on many aspects of our science
strategy. The strategy overall sets out our clear and firm commitment that
science matters. However, the strategy is now three years old and we need to
take stock of how far we have met our ambitions. We therefore plan to
publish a report on progress on the strategy in the spring, which will also
set out where we are headed.
The science strategy covers all aspects of the way the Scottish Executive
uses and manages science, including strengthening and promoting our research
base, increasing commercialisation activity, improving science education and
public awareness and ensuring that all our policies on science across the
board are joined up.
Our science base is well funded, but it needs to operate more strategically.
We need to grow more centres of research excellence and bring parts of the
science base together to work on joint endeavours. That is of course one of
the issues that the Scottish Science Advisory Committee is tackling. Also
relevant is the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's initiative on
research pooling, which I am pleased to report is making encouraging
progress.
We need to build up our international profile on science and develop better
research links. Ministers recognise their key role in promoting Scotland's
capabilities beyond its borders, and opportunities to do so were exploited
during recent visits by the First Minister to China and the Deputy First
Minister to the United States of America.
We need to encourage greater investment in innovation and R and D. In the
past year we have also provided increased funding for commercialisation and
knowledge transfer through schemes such as our proof of concept fund, which
was recognised in the "Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration"
as a leading scheme within the UK. Annual surveys continue to show that, on
many measures of commercialisation activity, Scotland continues to perform
excellently, particularly in the biotechnology sector. However, that is not
to say that we should be complacent: Robert Brown and Alex Neil are right.
We welcome the Scottish Science Advisory Committee's recent report on
knowledge transfer, which notes that although investment by business in R
and D has improved greatly in recent years, it continues to be relatively
weak in Scotland. Global competition is intensifying, particularly from the
far east, and Scotland needs to be more ready and willing to grow its
knowledge base and, in turn, its knowledge economy.
We must encourage businesses and the higher education sector to take
advantage of the opportunities. That requires—dare I say it—even greater
collaboration between the two sectors. A number of bodies, including the
Scottish Institute for Enterprise, the intermediary technology institutes,
SHEFC and Scottish Enterprise, are working hard to promote that agenda. We
intend to consider that agenda in more detail in our response to the
recommendations of the Lambert review.
The Scottish Science Advisory Committee has now completed its first phase of
operation and I wish it well as it enters a new phase, concentrating on the
strategies required to reshape and prioritise funding and activity in the
Scottish science base.
Alex Neil: In the Further Education and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill,
there is a statutory requirement for the newly merged council to set up a
research committee. I do not expect the minister to answer in detail
tonight, but I ask him whether he will consider the division of
responsibility and the relationship between the research committee and the
Scottish Science Advisory Committee.
Allan Wilson: Yes. In the relatively short time in which I have been in this
post, we have identified that as something that we want to examine.
The SSAC's report, "Why Science Education Matters", which was published last
year, highlighted many of the continuing issues in this area. As part of the
strategy, we have already provided £18 million to provide modern science
education equipment in schools, to up skill teachers, and to boost continuing
professional development provision.
The Education Department has been developing sophisticated work force
planning arrangements to ensure that we have the right number of teachers
for each and every subject. Those arrangements consider, among other things,
the age profiles of teachers, which enables the rate of retirement of
teachers to be considered so that the supply of training places can be
increased. That applies as much to science as it does to any other area of
teaching. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring members.
I assure Robert Brown that we will also examine all aspects of the science
curriculum in the early stages of the curriculum review that was announced
by Peter Peacock earlier this month. The review is part of a move to create
a coherent curriculum that covers ages three to 18. Of course, science is
the only subject area that is specifically targeted in this way.
Informal science education is a vital means of generating enthusiasm and
interest in science. It is crucial if we are to turn science into the sort
of attraction that it ought to be for our younger generation. We have
therefore established, in our spending review, long-term funding to help our
four science centres provide that service.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton asked about a particular form of procurement. I
am happy to report that we are actively seeking tenders in that regard and
will shortly be in a position to make an announcement. I have no idea what
provision is made to take children to see Concorde, but it sounds an
extremely useful proposition that is worthy of further consideration. I will
be happy to consider the issue in consort with colleagues in other
departments.
We believe that our science strategy is on track to enable science to make a
full contribution to our economic, social and environmental development in
the years to come. However, this is a constantly evolving agenda and our
efforts need to be sustained over the long term. The robust funding that we
have provided in our recent spending review is a measure of the importance
we attach to this agenda and the promotion of science more generally.
To view the entire debate -
Click Here
|
