|
Life Sciences
A debate on motion
S2M-2644, in the name of Jim Wallace, on life sciences.
The Deputy
Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2644, in the name of Jim
Wallace, on life sciences.
The Deputy First
Minister and Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Mr Jim Wallace):
I am delighted to open this debate on Scotland's life sciences sector;
indeed, I think that this is the first specific debate in the Parliament on
such an important contributor to Scotland's economy.
From the discovery of the antibiotic to the development of the first cloned
mammal, Scotland has been responsible for key breakthroughs in
health-related research. Our innovations have been a key catalyst for
productivity and growth, as new ideas drive enterprise, create new products
and markets, improve efficiency and deliver benefits to firms, customers and
society.
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: I call Allan
Wilson to wind up the debate. You can have about 14 minutes, minister.
The Deputy Minister
for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
Excellent stuff.
We have had an excellent debate on a subject that probably all members agree
will play a key role in determining Scotland's economic and social future.
Our smart, successful Scotland strategy highlights the need to raise our
long-term growth rate
if we are to achieve our broader economic and social objectives. Again, I
think that all members would agree that the life sciences sector is one of
the key sectors that can help us to deliver on that ambition.
As we heard, principally from Jim Wallace but also from other members, we
have an impressive track record. We have an internationally recognised
science base from which world-class research is being developed through the
creativity and enterprise of our people — a subject that we debated in
Parliament only yesterday. Our research base provides the foundation for
commercial success through new and established businesses, helps to attract
leading international skills and investment, including international
investment, as we heard, and puts Scotland firmly on the life sciences
global map, in the global economy in which we compete.
As the life sciences strategy says, we must be "ambitious yet realistic" and
we must "capitalise to the full on the spirit of co-operation, networking
and partnership" that makes Scotland stand out from the rest of the global
competition. In that context, we have real benefits of scale and
connectivity, which we must use to our advantage. The strategy seeks to do
that.
However, growing the economy is like growing a business — if Brian Monteith
were still in the chamber I would debate the point with him. It is not just
about whether the statistical indicators point in the right direction; it is
about focus, building on our strengths, people — as Kate Maclean said—jobs
in a real, not imagined, economy and the overall contribution of businesses
to growth. The strategy mentions those factors under the heading, "Achieving
Critical Mass for Sustainable Growth".
In response to Brian Monteith's direct questions, I acknowledge that there
is an understandable need to balance resources against opportunity and to
take account of risk, to ensure that we can capitalise on the opportunities
that we all acknowledge exist. The strategy identifies four vital and
interrelated factors on which achieving critical mass depends: the right
people; the right resources; focus; and—I suspect, most important —
collaboration across the sector.
Contrary to what Jim Mather said, we can draw advantages from our position
in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Executive does not control the global
factors that have such a bearing on the open, trading, global economy;
neither does it control the key fiscal and monetary macroeconomic levers by
which Jim Mather puts so much store. However, we benefit from those levers.
Jim Mather:
It was pointed out that 17 per cent of UK patents are raised in Scotland,
whereas only 5 per cent are commercialised here. Why does the minister think
that that gap exists?
Allan Wilson:
There will be a plethora of reasons why an individual patent might never
reach commercialisation. My good friend Murdo Fraser referred to venture
capitalism and access to funds to let good ideas develop and become
commercial. Such funding can help, but he failed to welcome our announcement
of £40 million of further co-investment finance to encourage the private
sector to take the risks that we would want it to take in areas of
development.
Murdo Fraser:
Does the minister agree that nothing would do more to deter venture
capitalists than to increase the top rate of tax by 10 per cent?
Allan Wilson:
I can think of a range of things that would deter venture capitalists from
investing in this economy. The principal one is probably the return of a
Tory Government. Thankfully, that is not on the cards.
We benefit from the stable macroeconomic environment in the UK. Mr Mather
again mentioned Ireland in support of his contentions but, as I said only
yesterday, figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development show that the UK business tax burden is below that of Ireland.
Therefore, Mr Mather's argument is unsustainable.
We have had a sustained period of low inflation that supports business
competitiveness and allows greater certainty for the range of business
decisions. That would be at risk were a Conservative Government to return.
We provide low levels of interest rates — at half the level that prevailed
during the period of Tory Government — which reduces the cost of borrowing
in the business and personal sectors. The cost of borrowing, again, is half
the level that prevailed during the Tory years.
As I have said, we provide favourable levels of corporate taxation. We also
provide well-defined fiscal rules. The nationalists do not even have a
fiscal or monetary policy so that we might compare it to ours.
Phil Gallie:
The minister refers to the economic position during the period of
Conservative Government. Does he recall Mr Blair going to the Council of
Ministers in Amsterdam in 1997 and boasting of the strongest economy in
Europe? Does the minister think that that will still be the case in a few
years' time, given the high percentage of public expenditure against GDP
that is being encouraged by this Government?
Allan Wilson:
I believe that Mr Blair will be the Prime Minister for the foreseeable
future and, yes, that the economy will continue to grow and prosper under
the astute stewardship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor's
budget builds on our strengths and ensures that we can base our
microeconomic policies on a robust macroeconomic foundation.
The Scottish economy has performed well recently. We have GDP growth over
the year to the third quarter of 2004 of 1.8 per cent, and our most recent
quarterly growth rate of 0.9 per cent is above that of the UK as a whole.
Alex Neil:
Will the minister take an intervention?
Allan
Wilson: If Alex Neil
does not mind, I want to make some more references to what has been said in
the debate, rather than go back over yesterday's territory.
Murdo Fraser made some criticisms — as does his amendment — of the financial
contribution to the sector. However, we heard from Wendy Alexander — very
succinctly — about investment over the years. We have had the proof of
concept fund, the SMART scheme, SPUR, SPUR plus and, of course, the Scottish
co-investment fund to which I have referred. All of those have been crucial
in stimulating and supporting a wide range of early-stage life science
investments of up to £2 million. Of the 62 investments concluded to date, 16
have been in life sciences, leveraging in more than £9 million for those
companies.
Murdo Fraser quoted an anonymous source — I have no idea who it was—saying
that the consultation was too rushed and not comprehensive enough. I am
reliably informed by my colleague Jim Wallace, who was in charge of the
process, that he was being told by the industry at the time not that we were
being too hasty in developing our strategy but that we were not being hasty
enough. Furthermore, I have seen a list of those who were invited to
participate in the consultation and I do not see any prominent academics in
the life sciences industry missing from that list.
As Wendy Alexander correctly commented, we are being successful in accessing
UK funding. Stem Cell Sciences, for example, led a winning bid to the
Department of Trade and Industry's competitive technology strategy fund and
secured £1.75 million for a project to develop a resource for
high-throughput screening. That is a classic example of the benefits that
are to be gleaned from a UK-wide approach.
I do not agree with Phil Gallie's assessment of Shiona Baird's contribution,
which I thought was anti-science in some respects in its prejudice against a
particular form of technology. We support the science base and we cannot
pick and choose
from within it. The longer-term potential of GM technology should not be
dismissed out of hand. We recognise that people have strong views about GM
crops, and about the technology as a whole. We recognise that it is not
solely a scientific issue. However, most people support the development of
GM medical applications because they can see the benefit that those
applications could bring. I ask Phil Gallie, and any other member who poses
the question, why we should undermine our future competitiveness by closing
the door to the potential benefits of that technology.
Fiona Hyslop:
Does the minister agree that if we are to have a public that understands the
challenges facing us, such as ethics in life sciences, technology education
must be taught and supported in our schools?
Allan Wilson:
I do indeed, and I take the
member's point about resource and the claim that science lessons are being
cancelled due to a lack of equipment. I do not know whether that is true — I
am sure that the Minister for Education and Young
People would wish to look into it. What I do know to be true is that the
Executive has provided an extra £16 million of resources for additional
science equipment since 2002, and that we are providing a further £2 million
next month for that development. I hasten to add that all of that investment
would be put seriously at risk were the nationalists ever to stand where I
am standing and have to account for the black hole in their finances that is
so obvious from their economic strategy — or lack of it.
Alex Neil:
Will the minister give way?
Allan
Wilson: I am in the
process of winding up.
The
Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
Another minute would be helpful, Mr Wilson. [Laughter.]
Alex Neil:
Currently, 0.7 per cent of our GDP is spent on research and development. In
his budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set a UK target of 2.5 per cent
of GDP. What will the minister do to close the gap between 0.7 per cent in
Scotland and the target of 2.5 per cent for the whole of the UK?
Allan Wilson:
That will be achieved through
the progress and development that we are hoping for in critical sectors such
as the life sciences sector. The Parliament has debated the matter. The
Executive has set targets and we are improving on our record. The level of
public sector investment must be matched by private investment. As Mr Neil
readily accepted, collaboration between the public and private sectors is
critical to that process. The co-investment fund is a key instrument by
which we might lever in more private sector investment.
I welcome the contributions from Kate Maclean and Alex Neil, although Alex's
contribution bore no relation to the amendment.
However, his point about the University of Dundee was well made. He was no
doubt too modest to tell the chamber that the reference to the production of
leading economic graduates was a personal one, but I recall that he was a
member of the Labour Party at the time. As Kate Maclean said, contemporary
Dundee is at the centre of the successful development of the biotechnology
industry.
When I was in Dundee a couple of weekends ago, I was told by a pre-eminent
Cambridge academic that, if somebody wants to study biotechnology, they go
not to Cambridge, but to Dundee. Yesterday, we heard — albeit grudgingly —
from Alex Neil's colleague, Brian Adam, that Aberdeen is a smart, successful
city. It is great to have the SNP enterprise spokesman's endorsement of the
fact that Dundee is also a smart, successful city under the Executive's
direction. I am sure that everybody would agree that it is good to see the
north-east prosper under the Executive. It is good for Stirling, Glasgow—
Phil Gallie:
What about the south-west?
Allan
Wilson: It is good for
Ayrshire too.
The life sciences are, in general, a success story. Scotland will prosper as
the life sciences prosper, and the life sciences will prosper under the
Executive's strategy.
NOTE:
That the Parliament recognises the important role of life sciences in
Scottish society and the contribution they make to economic prosperity,
wealth creation and improving the health and quality of life of millions of
people; believes that the
sector harnesses Scotland's world-class scientific excellence and fosters
greater entrepreneurial spirit; endorses the Scottish Executive's support to
the sector, notably through successful, innovative initiatives such as the
Scottish Co-investment Fund and the Life Sciences Intermediary Technology
Institute; welcomes the Executive's commitment to the Life Sciences
Strategy, working in partnership with industry, academia, the investment
community, NHS Scotland and all the other stakeholders to create a stable
infrastructure in which the life sciences sector can flourish, and supports
the firm intention to work in partnership to deliver the 15-year vision for
2020.
To view the entire debate -
Please
Click Here
|
