 The next item of business is a debate on motion 11958 in the name of Richard Lochhead on Scotland as a technology nation. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate to please press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Richard Lochhead Minister to speak to and to move the motion around 12 minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today, as we celebrate the contribution of Rabbie Burns to the world, in this debate we can celebrate and discuss Scotland's contribution to the world as a technology nation, because the world's economy faces two extraordinary and arguably unprecedented forces, unavoidable forces. Firstly, the critical need to transition from an economic model based on fossil fuels to one based on sustainable resources, but also the need to rethink the way that we live and work in order to harness the potential of AI and other forms of new technology. Those are forces transforming our world, demanding collective leadership to steer a course through uncharted waters, but on which is an exciting voyage of discovery. Scotland can face this journey with optimism, equipped with an abundance of natural resources, and with its history, universities and industry providing opportunities to lead and break new grounds, improve productivity, create new businesses and open new markets at home and around the world. Scotland absolutely has the potential to be a leading nation in technology, science and world-class innovation. We start from a position of strength with our tech sector employing over 80,000 people, contributing around £6 billion to our economy. That is an astounding 107.5 per cent increase since 2012. With more than 700 life science organisations employing over 42,500 people, Scotland is one of the largest life sciences clusters in Europe, worth £3 billion in the Scottish economy, achieving 8 per cent growth each year since 2010, and exports stood at £3 billion in 2019. Scotland is also home to more than 227 fintech companies. The cluster has seen a 24 per cent increase in jobs over the past two years and is breaking new ground in areas such as green finance and financial regulation. I am grateful to the minister for giving way. It is interesting to see the areas that he highlights, both pure technology and its applications. Is that maybe one of the things that we need greater clarity on? Not just that tech is pure tech, but also ensuring that tech is a dynamic and a driver in existing tech such as advanced manufacturing, life sciences and robotics in the North Sea. That clarity needs to be translated into policy as well. I think that there is an element of truth in the member's point. That is a very important point in the debate, but I think that I can give hopefully the members some confidence as my remarks progress that we are doing at the moment. Of course, I should also add that we have a thriving space industry as well with 130 companies and a sector that employs 18 per cent of the UK workforce and has seen recent revenue growth of 30 per cent. Indeed, I see Orbex, based in Forrest in my constituency, has just been identified in the top 10 space startups to watch globally. This year, we hope to see the UK's first vertical launch take-off from Scotland as well, which will command headlines throughout Europe and beyond. We also have one of the largest critical technologies clusters in the UK, perhaps referring to Daniel Johnson's point, with a turnover estimated at over £2.8 billion at the moment. Those underpinning and often invisible technologies are vital to our future and a huge export potential in particular. Photonics, for instance, the science and technology of light, including lasers, optical systems and fibre optics, generates £1.3 billion in revenues, with over 96 per cent being exports. The growth achieved rightly warrants celebration. This is tremendous growth in tech against the backdrop of the challenges of Brexit, Covid, inflation and the energy costs. Of course, it is faced by all industries, including technology and, of course, the wider business community. That is testament to the strength and resilience of Scotland's high-tech industries. Scotland has always been very good at innovation and early-stage advanced technology, but what we have not been so good at is taking that to the next level. What are we doing to make sure that we do not have overseas agencies coming in and buying up our technology and taking that away? That is a very topical issue that the member raises and is very pertinent to this debate. Of course, there is a huge amount of activity at the moment in Scotland, with lots of signs of progress in relation to that challenge. I will be referring again to some of the progress that is now evident, because we want sticky jobs that can stay in Scotland, and that is very much associated with tech jobs. We want to not only invent things in this country, we want to get the jobs and economic benefits from that as well. I also think that there are signs of that now changing in this country. Indeed, there is a national strategy for economic transformation and the recent innovation strategy, which is set out a very clear model to build on this. Forging partnerships between Government, academia and industry to build an entrepreneurial, innovative and successful technology nation. Together, we have invested in an infrastructure that nurtures talent and provides opportunities to apply the technologies of tomorrow to the challenges of today as well. We have, for instance, in terms of infrastructure, the National Manufacturing Institute of Scotland, the Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre, the National Roboterium, the Aberdeen Biohub—just a small sample of some of the new infrastructure that is opened. In this case of these, for example, just in the last two years, a Scottish public contribution totaling more than £100 million for those projects. We have invested more than £155 million in the innovation centre since 2013, with a further up to £8 million per year that was announced just last week. We have committed—I will take final intervention if that is okay, but I will say it. I have just done a specific point. I think that you know what I am going to say. It is great to highlight that infrastructure that is in place, but how does that align with the Government's decision to shut three of the seven innovation centres last week? As the member will know, the Scottish Funding Council carried out a review at arms length from Governments on long-term funding for innovation centres. There is a lot of work going on in terms of those innovation centres that did not secure the long-term funding from the SFC about how the new model can work for those particular centres. There is work going on with the Scottish Funding Council for leading that exercise. I am confident in some shape or form that great work carried out by some of those innovation centres will continue. I can also say that we have committed £60 million so far to the implementation of the Scottish tech ecosystem review recommendations, including £42 million in a national and unique tech scaler network to support the next generation of Scottish startups over the next five years. We are developing entrepreneurial campuses with academics, researchers and students bringing new business ideas to life. That is the technology nation in action, and our science excellence fuels our innovation and technology with our world-class universities underpinning our tech revolution. I am happy to take it as long as I can. Can I ask the minister, given the point that he has just made on universities, whether he is concerned about the £20 million cut that they are facing this year? The universities have received over £1 billion from the Government per year for the past number of years. I think that what I am concerned about is the very difficult budget that the Scottish Government has to implement following the settlement of the UK Government. Everyone across the chamber of all parties should be concerned about the cut in the budget that the Scottish Government has received from the UK Government. On universities, they are playing a tremendous role at the moment, and they will continue to play a tremendous role. Spinouts from Scottish universities continue to attract significant investment, with £235 million, making it a record year for spinout value, up 53 per cent on 2021. Dundee was named the world's most influential pharmaceutical research institution above MIT in Berkeley and Oxford and Cambridge. Turex and Aberdeen spinout seeking to develop a treatment for Alzheimer's has raised hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars since its founding back in 2002. The research excellence framework for 2021 shows that there is world-leading research in every Scottish university. Napier, for instance, is one of three in Scotland and one of seven in the UK to achieve the highest rating for research and computer science. Our global leadership can also be reflected back at us from space. Scottish scientists designed crucial technology within the world's most powerful space telescope, the James Webb telescope, looking back in time by tens of millions of years, and developed key components for the LIGO project, the first in the world to detect gravitational waves. All parts of Scotland's tech for good approach, as those advancements can be seen to benefit our health and other needs of society. Indeed, two university spinouts, MR Coil Tech and Wide Blue, are behind new technology being used in the next generation of ultra-high-resolution MRI scanners and other medical devices. The minister has not mentioned some of the issues around and some of the technology around agriculture and, of course, gene editing is a real opportunity for Scotland. As a former rural affairs minister, what concerns does he have of Scotland's bloc on the opportunities of this new technology? AgriTech has a big role to play, and I am keen to learn more about that as part of our innovation strategy as we take that forward. Of course, it is vital that, at the same time as we keep an open mind to new technologies, we protect Scotland's incredible image for provenance and good, clean food and drink in terms of the raw ingredients that make up our fantastic food and drink industry. We have to balance those approaches. We have the right balance for Scotland at the moment. There is a new international standard that has been created for Wi-Fi-like communications. Edinburgh Bay's pure Wi-Fi is at the forefront of the emerging technology. Edinburgh recently opened the quantum software lab and will host the UK's first next generation supercomputer 50 times faster than any of the country's existing machines. Edinburgh was chosen to host that computer. Last year, the famous X prize chose Glasgow as its new European hub. We have brilliant games technology with its own track record of success, largely born in the city of Dundee, of course. That track record looks set to continue with Edinburgh-based Builder Rocket Boy, which successfully secured £87 million in capital just last week. That is another sign of the fantastic momentum in Scotland's technology sectors. However, we need to keep moving up the international league tables of technology nations. We must continue to create the conditions for success, such as rolling out fibre infrastructure, which is truly the backbone of a technology nation. A backbone that enables every business in Scotland, no matter where it is located, to play its part in the digital economy. Our record investment in our 100 programmes extending gigabit capable fibre networks across the length and breadth of the country. Over the past 10 years, we have invested more than £1 billion, delivering almost 1 million broadband connections. 5G is another engine of growth, and its adoption has the potential to increase Scotland's GDP by up to £17 billion, adding up to 160,000 jobs and helping to create over 3,000 new businesses by 2035. That is why we have invested £14 million in establishing the Scottish 5G centre and the network of regional hubs. Our enterprise agencies are playing their part in scaling up. Scotland continues to be the most attractive location outside of London for inward investments, with more than 8,500 jobs created last year. Our projects were up by 3.3 per cent in 2022, compared with a 6.4 per cent fall in the UK. In terms of inward investment, we are outperforming the UK in the best-performing area outside of London. Our agencies work together to help businesses to access the capital that they need to grow, which was raised earlier on. M-squared lasers, a quantum and photonics company in Glasgow, received £12.5 million investment from the Scottish National Investment Bank in November 2020, which was its first investment. The bank is now committed to over half a billion pounds of investment to 31 businesses and projects, bringing in more than 800 million pounds of investment from third parties. In fact, research last year showed equity investment into Scottish businesses reached a record £953 million. That was an increase of 26 per cent from 2021. A strong and vibrant technology sector can do much to help us to manage the challenges as well that we face now and into the future. We want these companies to scale up, and it is great to see the news statistics. Those sectors generate high-value employment, and high wages, and more tax revenues, and they are export-driven. Many tech sectors pay well above the national average. The photonics sector, for example, is an average employee GVA, gross value added, of £89,000. It is important for us all in the chamber, as I draw to a conclusion, to remember the ultimate point of this technology. It can improve our quality of life, save our planet and support humankind. It can keep us secure in protecting vital systems and services from attack. We are producing health tech, agri tech, climate tech, clean tech, education tech and so much else. Much of the emerging new technologies to help the public sector and public good are emerging through our successful CivTech programme. In conclusion, to ensure that Scotland's high-tech industries are equipped to meet future challenges, the Scottish Government will continue to invest in digital and enabling infrastructure. We will work with businesses to develop a green industrial strategy. We will convene the industries to come together to understand how we can better support and drive collaboration between these high-tech sectors. We want to explore the appointments of ambassadors, for instance, for each of the high-tech sectors, and we want to promote Scotland's position as a leading science and technology nation. It is 25 years since the opening of this Parliament. We have witnessed enormous changes in that time, and from 25 years from now, the world will not be the same as it is today. However, Scotland is in a position of strength, and Scotland can be, and if we play to our advantages, it will be a hub of world-class science and technology, and it urge Parliament to support the motion. As I have indicated to the minister, there is some time in hand this afternoon, so plenty of time for interventions at this stage. With that, I call on Brian Whittle to speak to him and to move amendment 6M 11958.1, around eight minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to rise to begin the Scottish Conservatives contribution to this important debate. In any debate where I get to quote the science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke is a good day, he wrote the three laws about the future, the most famous one of which was, any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. He wrote that in 1968 at a time when many people believed that by now we would have colonised space, cured hunger and ended disease. Well, you couldn't accuse them of being unambitious. But if the author were here today, would he see that technology be possessed now as magical? Would he recognise that same technological ambition in us today? Certainly we have transformed the way we live and work since his time. The warehouse-sized computers which helped to put man on the moon can now be vastly outperformed by the smartphones in our pockets or even the smart watches on our wrists. In every sphere of life from education and health to engineering and business, new technologies have transformed how we live and work. As the Government's motion alludes to, Scotland has achieved a great deal as a technological nation from groundbreaking innovations to transformative innovations, but as the Scottish Conservative motion seeks to point out, our past achievements are no guarantee of future success. At a time when the pace of change in technology continues to accelerate and whole new fields of research are growing, we should be laying the foundations of future success. Instead, we see a Scottish Government not just lacking a focus on long-term gains, but in some cases taking decisions that actively harm it. The coming years we'll see dramatic changes in our economy and society as a whole. Technologies such as artificial intelligence and synthetic biology and zero-carbon energy all have the potential to radically alter our lives, and both the Scottish Government and this Parliament should constantly be considering how this could and should impact policy making. Of course, the Scottish Government haven't completely failed to recognise the need for change, the Scottish Technology Ecosystem Review, led by Mark Logan and commissioned by Kate Forbes, back when SNP plans for the future extended beyond the Scottish Green Party manifesto, offered over 30 recommendations to support more start-ups and scale-ups within the technology sector, which the Scottish Government duly accepted. At best, I think that report examined only part of the picture, and despite being published in August 2020, it was written at a time when the arrival of AI felt more distant than it does today. We might agree with me that the critical point in this space is that we always need to push ourselves further and that there is a constant challenge in technology and that there is a risk that we rest on our laurels. Indeed, if you look at the Logan review, there are a number of challenging recommendations that we have yet to fulfil and that, to be successful, we need to be realistic about the challenges in front of us. I think that Daniel Johnson is absolutely correct with that. One of the things that we need to do is to stop looking at the short term and looking much further and looking at the possibility, as I will probably come on to later on, and to ensure that the framework is there to support those possibilities. Technology moves quickly, Deputy Presiding Officer, and all too often Governments have a reputation for moving painfully slowly. The belief is enough for this, or any Government to act in response to changing technology, is to show this way to allow other countries to leave Scotland behind. If we are to capitalise on these technological revolutions, we must plan for the long term—in the big picture that I was discussing with Daniel Johnson there—to use a construction analogy, Deputy Presiding Officer. The first role of Government should be sight, clearance and preparation, not architecture. Education lies at the heart of this for me, and it is why it is prominent in our amendment, and I was glad to see in the Labour amendment as well, for which we will be supporting later. Education is what shapes tomorrow's workforce. Education is where we can offer everyone an opportunity, and education sets the path of an individual's life. It is also one of the many areas where the Scottish Government consistently fail to deliver has been discussed in this chamber often recently. Judge me on my record on education, said Nicola Sturgeon when she was First Minister. While the immediate focus might be on WhatsApp retention policies, the record of our Government and her successor on education is no less disingenuous. While Scotland's return to PISA and other educational rankings is a welcome development, it is only safe to demonstrate just how much of a hill we now have to climb. Before any SNP MSPs loop to their feet to insist that our declining performance is not unique and remind us once again that Covid is responsible for every bad outcome, except the ones where the UK Government's fault is important to point out that Scotland's score in maths has declined more than 20 points since 2015. The OCD director of education and skills is on record as saying in a quote, that long-term issues in education systems are also to blame for the drop in performance. It is not just about Covid, citing declining parental engagement, worsening teacher-student relationships, difficulties recruiting teachers, and the negative impact of smartphones' use for leisure purposes, as other key factors to consider. Finally, it is worth noting that some countries have improved their PISA scores, so a pandemic decline was not inevitable. The reality here is that the approach to education simply is not working. Where we should be encouraging Scottish pupils to study STEM subjects in further and higher education, we see cuts in the Scottish funding council and a cap on Scottish student numbers leaving the next generation of homegrown talent at the back of the queue for places. That assumes, of course, that we have pupils leaving not only the basic skills required to study STEM but the inspiration to do so also. If pupils are not coming out of school having had the chance to learn to code or visit engineering businesses or hear from scientific leaders about what the future holds, why would we expect them to want to make a career for themselves in technology? I feel as though I have barely scratched the surface of my thoughts on this subject. There is a whole separate debate to be had on the potential of new technologies within the NHS and the desperate need to modernise the technology and IT systems of the health service. Similarly, we must spend more time talking about the digital infrastructure that will be the backbone of our future economy, from 5G to fibre broadband to grid infrastructure for data centres. I hope that colleagues across the chamber will touch on at least some of those points and agree with me that we have the potential to be a leading technology nation, but only if we start from the position of accepting our current weaknesses and think for the long term. Before I close, seeing that I have a little bit of time, I was really interested to hear the minister talk about our technology and our space technology. It strikes me that—I was watching a programme the other day that said that when we human beings are long gone, the only thing that will be left will be AI, and that 1970s technology has now left the solar system and may live for billions of years beyond our short lives. AI has such a huge potential—and yes, I am a nerd when it comes to that kind of stuff, Deputy Presiding Officer. If I could close, I would return to another of Arthur C. Clark's three laws. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. With that, Deputy Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in my name. I now call on Daniel Johnson to speak to and to move amendment 11958.2, a generous six minutes, Mr Johnson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. In some ways, can I pick up for Brian Whittle left off? I think that this is about challenge. It is about what we need to achieve and the gap between what that means and where we are now. There are many things that we can agree with in the Government motion. There are many things that we should be celebrating. Technology is undoubtedly one of our strengths. We have fantastic innovation in terms of tech startups both here and in Glasgow. We have phenomenal strength in terms of games industry in Dundee. We also have in Aberdeen really fascinating work in terms of robotics and also use of technology in supply chain. But are we a leader in technology? Are we there yet? I do not think that if this debate was being debated in Seoul or in California or in Estonia, you would hear a debate or have a motion quite like the one that you had from the Government, because I think that they would be rigorously focused on what they needed to keep pace about issues such as AI, about whether or not China was going to replace them, where the next challenges were going to come, global supply chain shortages in terms of silicon chips potentially coming from future global conflicts. Those are the sorts of things that we need to be alive to, but also recognise that we have still got so much further to go if we are truly to be a tech nation. I think that what I would like to do is set out some of the challenges that I think we have to address. I am glad that the minister mentioned AI in his introductory opening remarks, but frankly a motion discussing technology that does not even name check AI in this day and age is just deficient. I will be supporting the Government motion, but I think that I would urge the Government to back the amendments, both from Labour and from the Conservatives, because it is important that we are clear-eyed about what those challenges are. I move the amendment in my name. Let me start with the Logan review. The Logan review was excellent, but it was very clear about those challenges. Yes, the Government has moved forward on some of the recommendations, but not all of them. It was very clear about the importance of education, but, since that point, and if you talk to any tech entrepreneur, frankly, they will highlight the importance of computer science teachers in our schools. Quite simply, they have declined since that report was published, not increased. What is more, we are only seeing handfuls of computer science teachers going through teacher training college. That is an issue of national importance. It is certainly one of critical importance to the tech sector, but it goes beyond just computer science teachers. It is also about how we are teaching technology. I hear concerns again from the tech sector, but also from parents, frankly, in my casework, that simply the availability of iPads in the classroom is seen as a proxy for technology. Frankly, our children do not need to be taught how to consume technology, they need to be taught how to use it, how to manipulate it, how to actually use technology. I am very grateful to Daniel Johnson for giving me a way. I cannot agree more on what he said. I wonder if he agrees with me that it is not about teaching our kids technology, because the jobs of the future are yet to be invented. It is creating an environment where they can see the impossible. I completely agree with that, but it is also about the applying technology in their work when they seek to do new things. Frankly, I do not think that we have enough of that, and it is certainly not rigorously or comprehensively. Finally, one critical point from the Logan review is that we still have a job of work to be done in terms of capitalisation and investment in tech. Yes, there are steps in the right direction, but we still have a big funding gap. Access to those critical venture capital funds in other parts of the world, because that is where the money is, still has to be bridged and to be made, but it is not just about the tech sector itself. I touched on that in the intervention at the application of technology, but it is also the penetration of technology right the way through our economy. Quite frankly, when I come from a small business environment, I am critically aware of how poorly most SMEs currently use technology. According to Sage, we could just about double the output from SMEs from around 200 billion to over 400, simply if we were to get them using technology as well as those in the upper quartile. That is a huge boost. Likewise, the open university recently reported that 79 per cent of SMEs are held back from applying technology because they simply do not have the financial time or knowledge to implement them properly. We have to focus on penetration of technology right the way through the economy, not just in the tech sector itself. Another point that I think is critical is that we need to recognise that the economy comprises not just the private sector, the public sector and the private sector, but we are a million miles away from where we need to be in terms of applying technological innovation and technological processes in our public sector. I am very thankful to Richard Lochhead for bringing forward this debate, but frankly it is somewhat dismaying not to see the cabinet secretary present this, let alone not to see the other cabinet secretaries who should be interested, because we need technology innovation and health, we need it in agriculture, we need it in education, we need it in social security. I have thought that at least one of those individuals could have played a role, a re-useful role in this debate. Gentlemen, please, not from sedentary positions across the chamber. Please continue, Mr Johnson. I am trying to make constructive challenge yet. Maybe that is a wider point, but I am the front bench spokesperson for the economy. I am taking that forward. It is certainly a core part of my work, and I have my colleague who is the front bench spokesperson for education, so that is the way that we shadow elaborate. Minister, please refrain. Mr Johnson, please can I just say to members, when the person who has the floor is the person who gets the shot to speak. Mr Johnson, please continue. Very much. Look, this is a challenge to us all. I don't think that this is a partisan point, but critically if we are to deliver on the challenges that are faced by demography, climate change and all the other challenges that were highlighted, we need to apply technological innovation right the way through our public sector. The final point is that I just don't think that it is acceptable to talk about technology, what needs to be done without talking about digital exclusion. Digital technology is how the economy works, how society works, and that is only going to get more so. We can use technology to improve those things, such as Blackwood Housing Association, my constituency, who use technology to stay in touch with people in their sheltered accommodation. However, I think that it is remiss to bring forward a broad motion on technology without addressing this vital social aspect of technology. With that, look, there is much to celebrate, there is much to focus on, but we need to be serious about the challenges, but we need to acknowledge the challenges first. Otherwise, we simply won't meet those challenges. Thank you, Mr Johnson. We now move to the open debate. We still have some time in hand, so a generous six minutes from Clare Adamson to be followed by Liam Kerr. It's always a pleasure to take part in technology debates in the Parliament. I remember a few years ago, I was talking in a debate about the SCDI report, Automatic for the People, which examined the fourth industrial revolution and the opportunities and challenges that Scotland faced as it was almost upon us. Just a few short years ago, it has almost passed us in terms of the speed at which technology has moved on and innovation is changing in our environment. That is something that does have challenges with it, but it is something that we should be embracing and something that Scotland is leading in some of the technology areas. The minister mentioned the robotarium at Heriwalt University, the cross-party group on science and technology, which I convened. I visited the robotarium just a short time ago and we were able to see some of the advances in robotics in areas of agriculture, in health, in the use of AI and chatbots in terms of the way that they could use robots in the hospitality industry. In the health where the robots were actually and AI was being used to examine the gate of people and be able to predict that someone was likely to have a condition such as Parkinson's disease long before any of the other tests that we have available to us might have indicated that that could be a problem. It also had sensor technology in there, and I note that Mr McKee mentioned sensors, which was of course one of the Internet of Things centres for excellence, along with sensor technology, where minute changes in someone's use of the technology could be detected by the machines in the way a physiotherapist might not be able to and correct it. Using the gaming industry, using games to engage with people as they did their exercises. All those technologies are coming together and we must be able to embrace that and go forward. In my constituency, I am lucky enough to have the campus of new college of literature in Motherwell, and there they have the smart hub, which is a funded hub where it is directed specifically to support SMEs and enable them to embrace some of the technologies around co-bots and AI-enabled manufacturing production opportunities. It is absolutely free as a consultant to SMEs across Scotland, and in there I was able to see the very simplest of robotics in terms of pneumatics that could be used in a manufacturing process, but also co-bots that were working alongside humans, robots that react if they are touched, so there is no danger to the people in their working environment. Some of the robotic arms from the co-bots were being used in very innovative ways. I was blown away by what was happening there. They have co-bots working at height on renewable energy wind turbines, where they are able to sand, weld, paint and repair the blades in situ. Daniel Johnson? I am very grateful to the member for giving way. I am delighted that she is talking about co-bots. One of the things that strikes me is that it has the potential to completely turn upside down economies of scale, making small businesses competitive for very big businesses, and does she agree with me that that is the sort of challenge that we need to get potentially ready for? Absolutely. That is why the debate debate this afternoon is so important. The co-bots were being used in our renewables energy. They were also being used in welding situations. That is very important and something close to my heart. When co-bots are working at height, it means that there is not someone abseiling up there and it is less likely of industrial injury. They can also work when it is maybe not safe for someone to abseil if the weather conditions are inclement and unable to be adopted by someone to do that job themselves, but they can work at height. They can work 24 hours and they can do precision welding, and obviously we know that there are industrial injuries from fumes from welding. It is something that is very close to the STUC and there has a group at the moment where they are investigating. Is there anything that makes those types of roles in our society safer and takes the danger out of the work? I think that that is amazing and we have seen that with the use of drones as well. The centre of excellence is well worth the visit and it is really excelling, but the other thing that it does is outreach to the schools in my area. It runs the robotics clubs for the feeder schools around about it and I know that that is a really welcome innovation and gives young people the opportunities that we have just been talking about. It does not have to always be classroom and SQA assessments that are happening, the opportunity to take part in some of the games and the skills and robot wars and all those things are really important for engaging our young people in technology. With the cabinet secretary, I was invited as the CPG chair to the centre of data science and AI at the University of Glasgow. That is a new centre of excellence that is absolutely dedicated to how we can use big data and AI and how that can be used in the areas of health. We saw imaging research that has been done in cancer research, demonstrated there, and it is really just a centre that will be the state of the art for Scotland and again one of the first in the world to have such a dedicated centre. Our education is leading again. Recently, the cross-party group on science and technology also had an evening event with the University of Glasgow Scotland's critical technology supercluster. We were looking at quantum computing and semiconductors, which will absolutely transform what we were able to do in terms of monitoring and health. Today, we have systems working that are looking at the microwaves and the low-wifi frequencies in our environment that can detect if someone's breathing changes. The opportunities for health and looking after people with different conditions are simply breathtaking. That includes protecting people in their homes from trips and falls. That was something else. We saw at the robertarium how we can support people in their own home going forward with their robotics. Incidentally, one of the cobalts, I believe, costs around £25,000. You then have to buy the extension arm and have that fitted to what you are going to do with it. However, those are not accessible technologies to a lot of our SMEs and it is transformative. I would also like to say that my committee, the Constitutional Europe, Science, Affairs and Culture Committee, recently had a visit to Ireland. When we were in Dublin, we met with producers there. I had asked about AI in every single meeting up to the very last one, but it was the food producers that were saying that they were using the next level of robots in their manufacturing. They said that, if it was not for the AI technology that they had, they could not be competitive in a European market and they could not be doing what they are doing. That is absolutely where we need to be. I am delighted that we are doing this at the moment. The member may have another 25 seconds. I can say that the AI Alliance—I met at the event the other day for British standards—is working with Datalab. It has a wonderful course called Living with the AI, which explains how AI is impacting on our lives day to day. I recommend that. I am going to try to hope that members in the chamber today will consider that course as a way into understanding AI in our developing world. There is little to disagree with the motion that the minister has put before the Scottish Parliament this afternoon. Of course, technology, science, innovation play and will play a fundamental role in Scotland and Scotland's economy going forward. We also celebrate that and we acknowledge that key role that it is going to play. The motion raises two linked concerns. The first being a brief one that Daniel Johnson alluded to. Surely if debate in the Scottish Parliament is for anything, it is to interrogate a topic, to celebrate the successes absolutely but also acknowledge the challenges and horizon scan for those challenges ahead and offer the opportunity for the Government to put up those challenges and listen to the issues and the possible solutions. Just as Daniel Johnson suggested, it would be done elsewhere, but this motion falls at the first, which suggests not only that the Government takes a different view to me on the role of debate but also highlights its inherent and stifling tendency to think very much in silos. That is the only plausible explanation for the extraordinary omission of the one sector that can drive not only societal change but the very changes and outcomes involving budgets, the economy and technology as craved by the motion. In order that viewers at home are aware, the motion will only mention education if either or both of the Conservative and Labour amendments are agreed today, which is why they must be. Yesterday's Scotsman editorial made this point better than I said. If Scotland is to prosper, it needs leaders who have an overriding obsession to improve the fundamental building block upon which everything else depends. Until then, the foundations of our economy and society will continue to crumble into sand, risking a spiral into a devastating, long-term decline. Indeed, because it is fundamentally incoherent to talk about the positive impact of business on society and then in the same breath launch a tax and act budget that cuts the economy budget by £97 million, cuts the Scottish National Investment Bank budget by £69 million and cuts the enterprise budget by over £62 million. Those businesses and enterprises that remain need to have a supply of talent and skills and for the purposes of this motion, as Brian Whittle said, in stem subjects particularly. Yet last year there were over 350 fewer science teachers, 300 fewer mass teachers and 180 fewer computer science teachers than there were in 2008. As Daniel Johnson rightly said, not only do we have fewer coming through, but the minister did not even mention it in his remarks. What is hugely concerning is that, at a higher level, entries in science, mass and chemistry by women are at their lowest for five years. The supply of talent to our technology industry will also come from the further education sector. A sector so hammered by this Government, it prompted the principle of Nescall, the outstanding Nescall, to write to MSPs earlier this week. Neil Corry told us that, in a context where the SFC has reported, 68 per cent of colleges were facing a budget deficit, with four facing significant cash flow issues. The Auditor General warning about financial sustainability, colleges face a £32.7 million reduction in revenue funding. Only last year, he tells us, years of damaging funding settlements led to reduced student places across campuses, and it is likely that there will be a further reduction this year. He says that this will limit the flow of skilled and qualified entrants to the region's workforce, particularly concerning for businesses in key sectors, including energy transition, hospitality, travel and tourism, technology and life sciences. The member raised a number of important issues that absolutely deserve consideration. In the last two minutes, he has argued for an increase in budget in about four or five or six different areas of government. Can he explain how the Government is supposed to increase budgets for all those areas or protect them when the UK has cut the Scottish budget? Can he please explain how we are supposed to do that and what representations he made to his Conservative colleagues to change that situation? Of course, what the minister completely fails to acknowledge, as he has failed to acknowledge everything that I have brought up so far, is that he is sitting on the biggest block grant in devolution history. Minister, cut the waste, grow the economy and then you will have money to do what we need to do. The minister did not even mention the challenges for the universities, which remember the SFC has said is a sector forecast to be running a deficit of £3.3 million in two years, with net liquidity days forecast to fall to £124 in the coming financial year. Into that context is a Scottish budget that proposes cash cuts of almost 6 per cent to resource budgets and a £28.5 million cut to teaching grants, leading to at least 1,200 fewer university places available to first-year Scottish students. To study in Scotland for the very industries that the minister has stated, if it is very brief, please consider. £8,000 per place, that £28 million divided by £8,000, means that the potential implication is not closer to £3,500. Is that not the basic arithmetic? I think it is, and that was a point that was made by the member's colleague Michael Marra I think just last week when he said, look, 1,200, which is what the finance secretary is saying will happen could be much, much more than that. I think Daniel Johnson makes a very important point. Presiding Officer, I haven't the time, sadly, to interrogate the apprenticeship and future workforce development issues, so I'll leave the chamber simply with this thought. The education landscape, which will generate the businesses, the talent, the skills of the future, lies battered and bruised after 17 years of SNP government, and the utter failure, the abject failure of the minister to even mention education in his motion tells a story of complacency on an industrial scale, coupled, I dare say, with a fundamental lack of ability. Once again, it has been left to the opposition to try and ensure the debate not only rightly lords our industries but also recognises and starts to address the challenges, and that is why Parliament must vote for the Conservative and Labour amendments at decision time today. Scotland is a deep and illustrious history of innovation and technological progress. From Alexander Graham Bell, inventing the telephone, John Loggy Baird's pioneering of television, James Watt's transformative improvements to steam engine, or Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin, the modern world, as we know it, can be said to have been created in the back of Scottish innovation. However, the jobs of yesterday cannot guarantee jobs tomorrow, while we can look to the past of our inspiration for Scotland to compete globally and meet the challenges of an ever-changing and interdependent world, we must focus on the future. This country is awash with high-tech industries, life sciences, space, fintech, agritech, games, robotics, AI and quantum infinetics are all sectors where Scotland boasts companies at the cutting edge of development. As MSP, who led this Parliament's first-ever debate on AI nearly six years ago, it's incredible to see the transformational effect chat GPT and other AI models are having, including on our economy. The Data Lab Scotland's innovation centre for data and AI recently published an impact report showing it generated nearly £200 million in revenue in the last decade with over 1,350 jobs created and 80,000 people registering for online courses created or funded. In North Ayrshire, we have global leaders in life sciences manufacturing, generating £251 million of gross value added last year. Scotland's largest life science enterprise area is an Irvine i3 enterprise area, where investment is being targeted as part of the Ayrshire growth deal. Such funding, including £11 million from the Scottish Government, will also create a digital processing manufacturing centre at the I3, providing a centre of excellence for digital automation and flexible advanced manufacturing space, serving digital process industries. In Dorae DSM, a company globally active in health, nutrition and bioscience, is enacting plans for large-scale production of a methane-reducing feed additive for cattle and sheep, reducing emissions by as much as 45 per cent in beef cattle. Mangata Networks chose Prestwick International Aerospace Park for its innovative space engineering manufacturing and operation hub, which is set to create 575 highly skilled jobs with more than 24 medium-class satellites produced and tested every three months at the hub. That will help to position Scotland as a leading centre for space in manufacturing innovation, while supporting the aims of the Scottish Government's space strategy and bringing a huge boost to Ayrshire's economy. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology giant GlaxoSmithKline has a major manufacturing facility in Irvine 2, producing 2,500 tonnes of active ingredients for two of the company's leading antibiotics every year, enough to supply 700 million people for a week. GSK explains why they and companies like them choose Scotland as a manufacturing base. It is the availability of a skilled workforce, an established supply chain backed by good infrastructure, Scottish Government support and a strong academic culture that generates the company's future talent pool that keeps us here. GSK also points to Scotland's size, allowing it to work closely with Government, its agencies, academic institutes and industry on partnership projects. There is a recurring theme of high levels of education and active economic development agencies as key factors in why companies come to Scotland. It is vital that they do come. Companies in high-tech industries such as Life Sciences create the growth that we need to create skilled jobs and drive productivity across the economy. However, as the Scottish Government's national strategy for economic transformation notes, Scotland lags the most OECD countries and indicators of entrepreneurial dynamism. Underline at this point, in May's meeting of the cross-party group in Life Sciences, members were treated to a presentation by Regis Professor of Life Sciences at the University of Dundee Sir Michael Ferguson. At this point, I should declare interests as a convener of the CPG in Life Sciences, which brings together industry, academics and MSPs to recognise achievement, encourage close collaboration and identify where policy makers can play an active role in making Scotland a place where people and businesses want to come to learn, feel encouraged to innovate and are supported to stay and grow. I thank the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry for all the work that they do in supporting the CPG. Professor Fergan's presentation focused on the practical challenges for growing Life Sciences start-ups. Despite having only 8 per cent of the UK population, Scotland won 14 per cent of the UK's life in medical sciences research grants. However, only about 6 per cent of commercialisation investment went to Scotland. If we look at Dundee, one of Scotland's centres of biomedical research and which hosts a wealth of expertise in life sciences, several successful high-growth companies created in Dundee moved their centre of operations out of the city and out of Scotland. Professor Ferguson suggested the creation of a national innovation-to-investable asset fund to help to keep Scottish-born companies in Scotland. I urge the minister to look seriously at creating such a fund, and I hope he will touch on that in his summing up. I am happy to take an intervention. One of the points that is made to me directly by Mark Logan is that he would like to see the scalar principle that has been about for technology applied to other industries. Is that some sort of idea that Kenny Gibson thinks could be applied to other sectors, such as life sciences? Yes, and I thank you for that intervention. As you may recall, I have raised the issue of tech skills a number of times in various budget statements and debates, because I feel that that is something that we need to expand. It is a great idea. I congratulate the Government for working on it, but I think that the money allocated to it, frankly, is not enough. I urge the Scottish Government, given the potential returns if we are looking to generate greater taxation or to invest in the public services that we need more funding for to invest more. I know that I am not the only one in the SNP group who believes that, and I am certainly not the only one in the finance committee who believes that, as people will see when we publish our report in the next few days. Meanwhile, looking at university spin-outs, Scotland has performed well in turning research into companies. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde universities all appear in the UK top 10 for the total number of spin-outs that has been created since 2011. Dundee, as we have heard earlier, is a global leader in its entrepreneurial impact. Of the 211 equity deals involving spin-outs across the UK during 2021, 21 per cent came from Scottish institutions, the highest proportion of any region or nation in the UK. Scottish institutions have produced some of the UK's most significant spin-outs, such as AI drug recovery company, Accentia or Industrial Biotechnology spin-out, enough. However, Scotland produces 50 per cent fewer spin-outs than the rest of the UK relative to the percentage of research funding with consequent impacts on the amount of investment raised by Scottish businesses. The national strategy for economic transformation recognises that, noting that in a quote, perhaps more than any other domain of the economy, it is in the creation of new companies and scaling up of successful companies where data shows the greatest gap between current performance and Scotland's potential. The Scottish Government has taken steps to address this. In 2022, Mark Logan appointed a Scotland's first-ever chief entrepreneur, tasked with ensuring entrepreneurship is embedded in the economy and strengthening partnerships with industry and investors. Clearly, we need to do much more. The role includes building a network of support for start-ups and scale-ups in Scotland, but we also have to consider the huge investment that will need in digitalising the public sector. The 10-year national innovation strategy that was published last year sets out a vision to make Scotland the most innovative nation of its size using innovation as a tool to make Scotland fairer, more equal, wealthier and cleaner country. The path to a more prosperous Scotland lies in fostering entrepreneurialism and innovation. We can then fuel economic growth and create new opportunities and build a more dynamic and innovative society. A world-class university skilled workforce and infrastructure give us strong foundations to truly make Scotland a technology nation. I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to follow Kenneth Gibson and his opening history of the technology and the development and the discovery that rested here in Scotland. It allows me to make immediate mention of Lukie House, the national respite centre, because we have already heard about the robotarium. Lukie House, through its guests, has been working with them to develop robots that can advance the diagnosis and prognosis with regard to urinary tract infection. To look at the meaning of technology, it is that ability to take scientific knowledge and put it into practical purposes, especially in industry. It talks to the heart of the reason for this motion today, because without technology, based on the scientific development from our world-leading universities, as we have already heard, we are not going to see the development in industry, the broadening of industry, the SMEs developing into highly technical world leaders, which is what Scotland needs. There is one example that I would like to make reference to in this short contribution, which is with regard to Sunamp, a company based in Trinent, under the chief executive Andrew Bysel and his truly superb staff. They have developed a thermal battery, in essence a battery that stores heat, or a device that stores heat. It uses phase change materials and discharges it as heat, so you can plug it into a house and have heat. You can plug it into a swimming pool and warm up the swimming pool, and the battery itself can be recharged from renewable energy. This company is so successful that it had the great privilege of winning the first Kings award for enterprise last year, but only in November last year it also won the Vibe Scottish Environment Business Award. I make mention for it because it is a world-leading company based here in Scotland that has been visited by ministers and cabinet secretaries, and its brilliant work has been hailed. It sits in an area where, just down the road in Preston Pans, the local high school, Preston Lodge high school, took part in fuel change for which people came, for which students came here. Basically, that was in Preston Lodge's cases 30S5s and S6s students, who had an opportunity to spend the year trying to solve, come up with solutions to the climate change challenge that we have. It was supported by staff in PL and the Senior Management team, along with universities and support. The challenge rose to it, and it rose to superbly well, as it would. To go back to Brian Whittle's commentnyddio'r Faesbydd Cymru, yn y gweithio gyda'r Fwellwyr, ato'r myfyrdd dim yn gweithio'r Prifysgol i ddim yn gweithio'r rhywbwys i'i deall. Gweithio'r Fwellwyr pyl, nid wych yn rhan fyddi Caerdyfwydd ar Profforol, rwy'n gweithio'r Fwellwyr, ond rwy'n gweithio'r Fwellwyr oetod mewn sgwaduraeth ychydig at lweithio y Licho 6. Nid yw'r gweithio'r myfyrdd yn y mae ydydd cymryd arweiniadau, neu ymddarr ydydd i'w ddys safonau cyfnodol, nad oedd ydych chi'n gweithio i gael y cyfnodol yn ei ddweud hwnnw? Mae'r rhywbeth y gallwn gyhoeddus a'r gyfnodol i'r ddweud hwnnw i'w ddweud hwnnw i'w ddweud hwnnw, a phobl o'r gyfnodol i'r ddweud hwnnw i gael y cyfnodol, ac mae'r lego clasys sy'n gweithio i'w ddweud hynny can just play at technology, but in doing so learn those innate skills that when they come to be faced with maths algorithms, it means something to them. It's not just a paper exercise. How can they do that when the specialists are unavailable to our schools here in Scotland? We've heard about the drop in availability of STEM teachers, none more so than in computer science. The very foundation of what we need, and as we heard earlier on, it's not just about our young people using technology. It's about our young people understanding technology, and actually technology working for the benefit of our young people. And they have those skills. The students who appeared in the fuel change project proved that, but that's just a tiny example of the many, many young people who are available. To pick up again on Brian Whittle's speech, because I think it is important, we've had two of the three rules, so let's have the third, the elderly scientist who will state something is possible. He is almost certainly right, but when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong. I venture before my next phrase that that was written in 1962. Women, girls play a massively important part, not just in STEM for the future, but in STEM and scientific discovery today. When we look at the motion, when we look at the work that's being done, we must remember that more than an equal contribution can be made by females into this field, and they need to do so. Because to go back to the meaning of what technology is about, it is about scientific theory and understanding making a practical solution, and their contribution in some ways can be far greater, certainly far more reaching than perhaps their male colleagues' contributions at time. At that point, I welcome the motion, I welcome the opportunity to celebrate brilliant technology in and around the south of Scotland, but I do call on that fundamental foundation of where we're going with education. How are we dealing with our youngest people as they first come into an education system and how they understand and as the curriculum for excellence required of those very first children at school, they have to look up at the sky in wonderment. To do that, they need adults around them who can support them, excite them, answer their questions, drive them forward to make the discoveries themselves. In order to do that, the Scottish Government has to facilitate those adults around our young people. I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. I now call Ivan McKee to be followed by Michael Shatman. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and it's a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate and thank the Government for bringing forward a debate on this hugely important subject, important to the future of Scotland's economy. As the minister identified, there are a number of global trends that we need to be ahead of the curve one where we can. Technology decarbonisation, and I would add to that listed demographic shift as well, which is going to drive so much in terms of technology requirements. The minister was right to identify as many other members have done Scotland's significant successes in many areas. The fact that we lead the UK inward investment and the opportunities that exist in our leading position on energy, food and drink, tech, particularly in fintech, financial services, advanced manufacturing, space and a life science sector has rightly been mentioned and there are others. What I want to focus on in my contribution is some of the challenges and some of the things that we need to make sure that we have in place to be able to take advantage of those opportunities. To build on that success, the first thing is to say that it's important that we understand the conditions for success and don't just take it for granted that these great companies are out there and great things are happening in our universities and basking in that success. We need to understand at a deep level what is driving it and what the pillars of it are and consequently what the risks are and what we need to strengthen. The first thing to say is that it's really important to understand what our strengths are. Clearly universities pay a pivotal role in taking forward that research and the challenges, as always, is how we build on that and commercialise it at scale. Brian Whizzo? I'm very grateful to Ivan McKee for taking the intervention. I agree with him that our universities are great incubators for some excellent innovation. Does he agree with me that the challenge is to hold on to that innovation in a country where 95 per cent of our businesses are SMEs and not have that initial tech bought out by Chinese or Americans and shipped abroad? Ivan McKee? He's absolutely right. I heard that in his speech. It's a problem, frankly, that most countries in the world suffer from and some of the things I want to talk about are maybe helped to address some of that. I also understand our strengths, our skills base, which, while it has its shortcomings, is always cited as a reason why investors come to Scotland and, of course, our natural resources, particularly in the energy and food and drink space. We need to be clear of what we're good at. We don't fall into the mistake of trying to be good at everything, despite the plethora of opportunities that we have in front of us. What we are good at, we need to be amongst the best in the world at, and not in the second division. The next point is to have a very clear strategy to deliver. We have the innovation strategy and I'm delighted that the minister has taken that forward. I would ask the minister and someone up to give us an indication that it's six or so months in as to where we are on rolling out the actions from that strategy, particularly around building cluster accreditation and making sure that we are understanding, as I said, at a deep level what we're good at and focusing on those technologies, supporting technologies and the vertical industry sectors that sit above that. I would take this opportunity to raise, as I did mention earlier, a concern around the innovation centre decision. The money is one thing, although those innovation centres are generating tens of millions in private sector contributions as well. Several of them will find a route through that, but more concerning to my mind is the lack of joined up decision making that it's a symptom of. Frankly, it's not good enough for government to say that they gave the problem to SFC and SFC gave it to some other folks and they come back with some independent assessment. Government needs to own this, it needs to be on top of it, it needs to have a joined up approach between the innovation strategy that identifies those innovation centres has been core to that. Then, on the other hand, to cut their legs away through some process that happens somewhere else that government is shifting the buck on. Frankly, it isn't good enough to intervention from Daniel Johnson. Daniel Johnson. I'm very grateful. I'm briefly on that. The innovation report laid out quite a complicated landscape for innovation. One of the problems is that we've got at least two places, fundamentally their own innovation. Do you think that innovation should be owned by a single agency within Scotland? It's an excellent point. If you look at that at a fundamental level, you've got the universities and the education system that drives the research and you've got the economic development agencies and the business sector that takes that and makes it work. The principle that I always worked to in business was that it's the customer that owns it, it has to own it because they need to pull it through and they are the people that need to be in the lead because they suffer the consequences if it doesn't work. On that basis, I would be all in favour of the enterprise agencies owning that problem. Part of the problem here is that we've given the problem to an agency that frankly doesn't understand innovation, doesn't understand research, doesn't understand innovation or commercialisation or economic development and we're suffering as a consequence of that. The second area to highlight is about capital investment in particular, who we approach for money, how we sell that to them, what businesses we want that money to come into, what sectors and how we put a coherent case together. I think that the global capital investment plan gives us much of the answers to that, so continuing to drive that and bringing that investment for businesses is hugely important because that helps to address some of the issues that Brian Whittle raised about those businesses being brought up. Those businesses have been bought out by international larger businesses. If we have the capacity to have that investment flowing in to the businesses in Scotland, they can grow and export on the back of that rather than feeling the need to be bought by someone else. The third point is about skills alignment. We understand that there are skills challenges, but I have addressed that issue to education ministers. Having a tight connection between what business requirements are for particular skills over the coming years and what the college and university sector is lined up to provide is really important. I worry sometimes that those two things are pulling in separate directions and we haven't joined that up as effectively as we could. The minister makes great points about infrastructure digital connectivity, which is absolutely central. I welcome the work that's happening there. It could always be faster, but I know a lot of good stuff happening on broadband and mobile connectivity across the country. The final point is about something that Daniel Johnson has raised, using the public sector in terms of adoption and procurement as an accelerator of that technology, giving businesses and NHS. A great example in which Brian Whittle mentioned that is to support our life science sector. I think that we are not as joined up there as we can be leveraging that significant £14-15 bill. That includes Mr McKee. Absolutely, to support Scottish indigenous growth businesses. I think that there is a huge opportunity and a lot of things that we can do to really transform Scotland's position globally, but we need to understand those drivers that might be joined up on delivery. Thank you very much. I call Maggie Chapman to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As we navigate our way to Farah in Greener Scotland, we know that technology will be an important tool for us to tackle the grand challenges that we face. We must not only embrace technological innovation and advancement, but also ensure that we are aligned, I believe closely, with Europe's forward-thinking approach to sustainable innovation. Of course, technology in and of itself is not always a good thing. We must make sure, as I discussed in the green economy debate yesterday, that our innovations, processes and techniques support our broader vision for a livable future. We know that many in Scotland have worked hard to earn our reputation as a hub of technological development, excellent innovation infrastructure, spotting and exploiting opportunities and a highly skilled workforce have all contributed to this. Digital businesses in Edinburgh and Glasgow, for example, have a combined turnover of £1.2 billion, employing more than 70,000 people. Of course, tech is in the DNA of Dundee, one of the cities that I am honoured to represent. Britain's coolest little city is, according to Tech Nation, one of the most likely cities to become a leading UK tech hub, with its vibrant mobile application software and games development scene. Brexit uncertainty, lack of adequate or appropriately targeted UK Government capital investment, skills development and talent retention remain challenges for the sector across Scotland to overcome if it is to continue to thrive well into the future. We will need tech, including AI, to meet the challenges that we face. As we embrace the transformative opportunities that tech provides, we must ensure that our technological progress aligns with principles that protect the planet, promote social sustainability and foster a circular economy. The Scottish Greens vision for Scotland as a technology nation extends beyond economic considerations. It encompasses the principles of green industrialism and the imperative to create a technology landscape that protects people and planet. In emphasising a repair economy, we echo the sentiments of those who want to end the cycle of disregarding perfectly good devices. We envision a Scotland where repair, reuse and recycling are not only encouraged but become integral to our tech cultures. The goal is to move away from the throwaway culture, from built-in obsolescence, where it is cheaper to buy new devices than repair the ones that we already love. In doing so, we not only protect our environment but also create thousands of jobs in a burgeoning repair economy. The principles articulated by the European Commission resonate strongly with our vision for a sustainable tech future here in Scotland. Our tech innovations must be solutions for, rather than a barrier to, the sustainable green economy. Given some of the growth predictions in different tech sectors, our commitment to green industrialism demands that we take proactive measures to ensure the growing environmental footprint won't have a negative impact. To harness technology for good and protect the planet, we must work toward the following goals. Consumers should have the right to repair their own devices or choose paid repair services. This will empower us to extend the lifespan of devices promoting sustainability and reducing e-waste, for example. Empowering people to make informed and sustainable retail choices is crucial. Labels should indicate to the environmental impacts of technology. This will empower everyone to consider the ecological footprint of their gadgets. We should set strong minimum sustainability requirements as far as devolved powers allow, including considerations for repability and product longevity across all products on the market. That would ensure manufacturers prioritise eco-friendly design and durability. Efficiency standards, currently industry-led across the UK, set a good precedent for that. We should promote that repair economy supported by strategic investments in creating secondary markets for reusing raw materials. That not only contributes to environmental conservation and material optimisation, but also generates new job opportunities in the repair and recycling sectors. Developing and sustaining a skills-based labour market and encouraging skills transferability in the context of the circular transition aligns with the goal of creating a workforce capable of supporting sustainable practices. That initiative promotes adaptability and expertise in environmentally friendly technologies. Aiming for zero harmful substances in our technology is a pivotal commitment tied to the goals of the circular economy. Eliminating or minimising harmful materials in the production and disposal of technology is essential for creating a less polluting and more sustainable industry. The UK Government has a role to play in all of this. We must enhance transparency and commercial reporting on the environmental impact of technology, including greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and life cycle impacts, to be published in an open database. This information empowers all consumers and policy makers to make informed choices. Integrating environmental impacts as decision making criteria in developing public policies for the purchase and use of digital equipment is critical. By aligning policies with sustainability goals, all Governments in the UK can actively contribute to shaping a more eco-conscious tech landscape. Scotland should align with 2030 EU targets for a significant reduction in the use of materials and incorporating the climate impact of technology in upcoming laws and regulations on AI. Those proposals collectively represent a comprehensive strategy to integrate sustainability into the technological landscape, ensuring a more environmentally conscious future. As we celebrate the strides made in Scotland's tech sector, let us weave those principles into the fabric of our technological advancement, because Scotland can be a beacon, not just in technological prowess, but in embracing technology that protects the planet, fosters social sustainability and champions of the circular economy. I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to be followed by Richard Leonard. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been a very interesting debate so far, and on a subject that I think we can all agree is of major importance. Much has already been said by others of Scotland's proud history of science and innovation from the TV and the telephone to the tidal turbines and the modern toilet. In a world where innovation and technology increasingly shape our everyday lives, Scotland has played a proud role, but now we look to the future and how we can build on Scotland's reputation and take advantage of the opportunities that it brings. Of course, to build on the new technologies such as AI. Artificial intelligence is increasingly pivotal in shaping Scotland's technological landscape, offering groundbreaking opportunities across various sectors. AI's role in Scotland's tech sector is advancing technology and building a smarter, more efficient and environmentally conscious future. Well, I didn't like that, AI did, and I suppose it would say that. But I have previously spoken about AI in this chamber and the opportunities it brings, but also on the challenges that we face because of it. In my own Highlands and Islands region, we are seeing traditional sectors also embrace and benefit from new technology. In agriculture, a sector that I am involved in, I have seen on our own farm how technology has transformed the way that we farm. It has been vital in increasing the efficiency of our crop and cattle production, in reducing emissions and making farming safer than it was. At the Highlands show last year, I spent much time speaking with operators about the potential of drones in agriculture, allowing better access for weed suppression, planting and other reasons to previously hard-to-reach areas. Scottish companies are making breakthroughs in vertical farming technology, with intelligent growth solutions from Dundee, developing a 900,000 square foot game-changing gigafarm in the United Arab Emirates. Not just promoting Scottish research, but also signalling our capability to improve agriculture globally. As has been highlighted earlier, there are further opportunities both for Scottish agriculture and for the businesses that support it from gene editing. We just need the SNP to catch up, put aside their prejudices and allow for those opportunities to be taken advantage of. That could have real benefits for our fruit security as well as for Scottish science and innovation. There has also been real technological advances, driving change in our whisky industry, not only to boost production, but again to integrate green technology into the processes and reduce emissions and environmental impact. It is also driving new industries. As a child, I remember work being done on wind turbines on Berger Hill in Orkney. Now, it is tidal turbines and other forms of marine renewables being developed at the European Marine Energy Test Centre at Beliw crew just outside Stromnes in Orkney. Stromnes is now home to Harriet Watts International Centre for Island Technology, and Orkney is home to a number of leading players in the field as well as a wider renewable sector that supports it. Again, as others have mentioned, one increasingly important example of new technologies and new opportunities is the Saks of Oord UK spaceport in Shetland, which plans its first launch later this year. While it may not, certainly in the foreseeable future, be the base for any interplanetary exploration, Shetland is boldly going where no Scottish island has gone before. Saks of Oord, along with the site in Sutherland, is helping to support a growing space sector here in Scotland, which will be a crucial hub for technological innovation and space exploration. Those projects have already attracted considerable UK Government funding, as well as from major international players such as Lockheed Martin, cementing Scotland's place as a key player in the UK space industry. That is something that, as the Deputy convener of the Parliament's CPG on Space, is very much welcome. Presiding Officer, the Highlands and Islands has always been an entrepreneurial and innovative region. Our geography has forced our people to look for solutions to the challenges that our rurality and remoteness set. That is why some of the decisions of the Scottish Government have been so disappointing. As Liam Kerr mentioned, in the latest SMP green budget alone, the Scottish National Investment Bank's budgets face a staggering cut of £69 million. Highlands and Islands Enterprise, crucial for development in my region, sees £8 million cut from its budget and, of course, budgets for further and higher education have also been slashed. Those are real setbacks for innovation and for growth. More so given that, in my time on the economy committee of this Parliament and the inquiry that we undertook into business support, I saw some of the challenges small innovative technology companies already faced when ready to scale up. If that support isn't available or the people and skills aren't available, then we risk innovators taking their ideas to more welcoming fiscal, regulatory and supportive climates. That is why the cuts in the Scottish Government's decision to text more heavily those who we need to attract to this country or at least to encourage them to stay risks being so damaging. In the longer term, it will only discourage investment, stifle enterprise and dampen the very entrepreneurship that is so vital for technological advancement. As has been highlighted, there are many good news stories on this subject. There is much to be positive about, but that is because of Scotland's innovative and entrepreneurial and creative people. What we need is a Government that recognises and supports the potential opportunities that investment in technology sector brings. Unfortunately, given its record over 17 years and its latest budget, we are still waiting for that. Questions of technology are too important to be left to a small class of specialists and managers. In my view, technology should be used to help transform not entrench existing relations of power. Its application should have social objectives, democratic objectives and egalitarian objectives, but all too often innovation and technology are directed to the wrong ends, to warfare instead of peace, to the desires of the rich in place of the needs of the poor, to trivial and harmful purposes instead of social, humanitarian and ecological ones. That is why we say that we welcome the humanitarian aid provided by the Scottish Government to Gaza, but we ask what good is it if we are also providing public funding to the high-tech arms manufacturers based in Scotland who are supplying the Israeli Government with the latest technology to bomb the people of Gaza? What good is that? This afternoon's Government motion speaks of a technology nation. The motion highlights inward investment and export opportunities. It is true that one of the challenges that we face in the Scottish economy is weak export performance and the negative balance of trade. However, the challenge is not just limited to the deficit in the export of goods and services. It extends to the huge deficit created by the export of profits, the extraction of value and the outflow of wealth. It is a deficit made markedly worse by the SNP green government's obsession with the EY index and foreign direct investment. An important analysis on that has been published recently by the economist Dr Craig Diel, who warns that the level of profit extraction from Scotland is far too high for a country of our size and economic development. He estimates that it totals £10 billion a year. It was a policy that began when the Tories were in charge of the Scottish economy back in the 1980s and 1990s. Their strategy was to close down the mines, the shipyards, the steel mills and the factories and replace them with silicon-glen. By attracting in a large, globalised, mainly anti-trade union electronics industry to Scotland, almost all of it is now gone. I am more convinced now than ever that what we need is an alternative economic strategy. It is not wanted to be found in either the politics of nationalism or the economics of market capitalism. In fact, as Mariana Mazucato has regularly reminded us, the state, the public sector rather than venture capital and the private sector is the key actor in the innovation system. However, shockingly, some of the corporations most notorious for avoiding paying their share of tax and so evading their contribution to the common good are some of those very same tech giants like Apple, Google and Amazon who benefit the most from it. I note that Amazon is inviting us to join them in this Parliament next week to consider their research and development record. I hope that they will also be able to tell us about their corporation tax record, their trade union recognition record and the ethics of their record as an employer on workers' rights, on human rights and equal rights. On the use of zero-hours contracts, the computer tracking of so-called associates and their record on poverty pay. I hope that they will tell us their record on that. It is time to think big and act radical because there are far-reaching implications of technology for democracy unless we recognise that the market is not democratic and that we need to plan our economy, that we cannot go on simply producing according to private profit instead of according to social need. Technology and AI will do nothing other than perpetuate biases and so deepen those inequalities of wealth and power. But I am not fatalistic. I think transformative economic, social and environmental change is possible, that our universities continue to carry out important and socially useful research and development, that with vision in politics, instead of people working for the economy, we can have an economy that works for the people, that we can stand up for democracy, not in the service of the people, not in the service of monopoly interests, that in Scotland we can take the lead, not only in pioneering this technology but in pioneering the democratic economy, promoting co-operatives, employee ownership, extending collective rights and the redistribution of power that needs to go with it. That has got to be our priority. That is how progress will be made. That way we can build, rooted in past experience, both progress in the present and hope for a better future. I call Cocab Stewart, the final speaker in the open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Dare to be honest and fear no labour, wrote Robert Burns. On this, the national day when we celebrate the works of the bard, it is an apt quote as we use this debate to look to our future. Securing a place as a serious player on the global economic stage requires for us to take seriously technology and innovation. This is and should be considered one of the most fundamentally important investments in our nation, not just a worthwhile project for us all to benefit from here and now, but a legacy for the next generation of Scots to build upon. I encourage the Scottish Government to build upon that future. I come to this debate with optimism as we recognise the fundamental role of technology and science and innovation in shaping our modern world, particularly as I intend to use this debate to discuss some of the work that is taking place in my constituency of Glasgow, Kelvin. As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, it is institutions like the University of Strathclyde that are not only carrying the torch of Scottish ingenuity, but also illuminating the path towards a brighter and more prosperous future for all of Scotland. Celebrating its diamond jubilee this year, Strathclydeunee, has the unique distinction of being named the UK University of the Year twice. It's no small feat. It speaks volumes about the institution's commitment to excellence and its role in driving force behind the Glasgow City Innovation District and the Advanced Manufacturing District. The university's partnership with global technological leaders like Rolls-Royce, Boeing and AstraZeneca are a testament to its calibre and its pivotal role in the global innovation landscape. I'm very grateful. I'd just be curious to know what impact £28.5 million worth of cuts to the sector would have on the world-leading outputs that she's describing. Any kind of cuts would have an impact that none of us would hear want. However, the block grant having fallen by 1.2 per cent in real terms has an impact and capital spending is due to contract by about 10 per cent over the next real terms. I would encourage the members to engage with the Westminster counterparts to increase the budget allocations for Scotland. The university's partnerships that I have mentioned and Strathclyde's expertise spans a vast array of fields from 5G and communications to health tech, quantum and energy. Those are the areas that will define our future, and Strathclyde is at the forefront leading that charge. Its network of industry-facing centres, including the Power Network Demonstration Centre and the Advanced Nuclear Research Centre are committed to addressing some of the most pressing challenges of our time. The Glasgow City Innovation District was founded by Strathclyde in 2019. The district, with an impact value created by the university of around £920 million, is a vivid illustration of how innovation can drive economic growth and create opportunities, which is why I would always encourage the Government to invest in such institutions because of the added value that they bring. Facilities such as the National Manufacturing Institute of Scotland and the Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre are more than just research centres. They are the groundwork for a manufacturing renaissance, I believe, in Scotland, blending the traditional expertise with cutting-edge technology. It is at the forefront of sustainability 2 and net zero research, a legacy that harks back to Professor James Blyde's pioneering work in 1887. This commitment to sustainable innovation is integral to our shared vision of a green and prosperous Scotland. At this point, I refer members to my register of interests, as I would also like to highlight the profound impact of the Scottish Schools Education Resource Centre, or CERCS, an organisation that I am proudly a board member of that is dedicated to enriching the professional learning of science, technology, engineering and mathematics educators and practitioners across Scotland. We have heard from colleagues that we continue to have a shortage of teachers in that area and underrepresented groups going into that field. The work of CERCS is worth highlighting because they not only educate but inspire and ignite a passion for STEM fields among Scotland's young learners, starting as early as age 3. According to a report by the OECD, children as young as 7 begin to limit the future career aspirations influenced largely by the immediate environment and societal norms. That is why it is incredibly important that STEM careers are put in front of children at a very early age. Through partnerships with organisations such as Ocean Winds, CERCS has funded programmes that bring practical hands-on STEM learning into school, while also upskilling educators and engaging students in real world challenges. I commend the Scottish Government's commitment to STEM subjects and the STEM education and training strategy. In summing up, I would be grateful if the Government could outline what its future plans are for STEM subjects and how they intend to expand STEM training and skills into the world of research and work. In conclusion, support for technology and innovation is not just about celebrating the triumph of our past but also about investing in our future. I will finish as I started with one final quote from Burns, who indeed wrote about the importance of education being valuable not just for education's sake. What's that, your jargon or your schools? Your latin names for hawns and stools? If honest nature made you fools, what says your grammars? Your better ten? Take up spades and stools or napping hammers. Technology, science and innovation have a crucial and ever-growing role in the modern world, as colleagues across the chamber have highlighted this afternoon. The key role that it plays in solving many of the 21st century challenges that we face, the transition to a green economy, space, as Kenny Gibson and Jamie Halcro Johnston mentioned, harnessing AI as Clare Adamson spoke passionately about. Supporting increasing demand in social care and the wider public sector, as my colleague Daniel Johnson pointed out, and life sciences, as Ivan McKee also mentioned. It doesn't just enhance our society, it also provides thousands of high-skilled jobs to and generates inward investment and export opportunities. But if we are to truly harness its potential, harness our technology prowess, as Maggie Chapman said, we must not just support the industry and its people today, we must look to the future to ensure that the next generation are inspired and supported to enter it. Two, as Brian Whittle said, lay the foundations of the future, and that is what our amendment focuses on today. As a wheelchair user and the daughter of an engineer, technology and engineering have not only been huge supports to me, the chair I sit in, the adapted van I drive and the aids and adaptations I use, but they've brought income and joy to our family and our community. I've seen first-hand the incredible importance that it has and the talent in the industry that exists and the benefits that technology brings. The talent of our people is our best natural resource, which the minister recognised in his opening contribution, and many of whom live in the Glasgow region, supported by our outstanding colleges and universities, are a great example of that. It concerns me then, and I think that it should concern the Government too, that many young people are not getting the exposure they need, particularly in school, where the subjects that support these industries—science, maths, engineering, computing—to not provide the same opportunities they once would have done to be exposed to those subjects. It also concerns me that the Government has taken, as Liam Kerr called it, a stifling tendency to think in silos. The vision that this Government has set out doesn't and cannot happen by accident, it will only happen by design, and as my colleague Richard Leonard pointed out, for the economy to work for all of us, it's important that we plan it that way and use technology for the good of people. To do that, the Government must work across silos, including in education, if it's to get anywhere near delivering the vision that it has set out. We must address that. We must inspire and teach young people about the value of these subjects and support their provision from the early years to the workplace. That's why our amendment focuses on teachers, and it's why we are concerned about the findings from Mark Logan's review that the number of computer studies teachers in Scotland is falling, as others have said, and that Scotland's education system is not currently set up to support a thriving technology sector. The most up-to-date statistics available demonstrate a worrying decline in computer studies teachers in Scotland. In 2008, there were 766 computer teachers. In 2022, that figure was 588. We need more, not fewer, computing teachers. The picture is not great in related subjects, either. The Government has failed to meet its target for new teachers in key subjects like biology. The target was missed by more than a third. In chemistry, missed by more than two thirds, and in computing and maths, less than half the target number were recruited. Attracting people to teaching is getting harder. Classrooms are particularly tricky places to be. The bursary scheme is massively underused, and fewer teachers are using the preference waiver system. All of that is having a real impact on young people's opportunities, but also on the economy and the potential of Scotland to be a high-tech industry. Undoubtedly, contributing to the fact that only 55 per cent of young people say that they know what engineers do, according to the Institute of Engineering and Technology. We must treat STEM subjects seriously if we are genuine in our ambitions to be a competitive technology economy. We also have to ensure that STEM is for everyone, and I would like to commend, as my colleague Colcab Stewart has, the work of SERT in this area. Liam Kerr is very grateful. In Scotland, in 2022, just 7 per cent of STEM apprentices in training were women. Is the member as concerned as I am about this, and does she regret the Government's lack of attention to that fact? I thank the member for that intervention, and I deeply regret that statistic. It is not only a statistic that we see in education and apprenticeships, but it leads through into the workplace where we know that 60 per cent of women, for example, if people working in the care sector are women, but women only represent 30 per cent of the STEM sector. Of those who stay in the STEM sector, only 12 per cent ever get to managerial positions. It is a huge concern to me that we do not have that pipeline increasing so that we can have women and their innovation, which my colleague Martin Whitfield spoke of, building our STEM economy for the future. To create a Scotland where opportunities for all, we have to smash every glass and glass ceiling in the way of pursuing skills of the future. My colleague Martin Whitfield has so passionately put the reasons to do that as the intervention outlines that I have just taken. We know that girls are far more likely to study hires in art and design, French, fashion, food, tech and childcare, boys are more likely to study computer science, physics, engineering and graphic communication. That speaks to some of the problems that we highlighted in the chamber today in terms of equality in STEM. We have to use every opportunity to expose all young people to the broadest of skills, including in STEM, to address the shortages in key sectors. We must be innovative in how we do this. We have to teach children that maths is useful and introduce them to real-life examples, as Martin Whitfield has also pointed out. I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer, but I just want to finish on that. Scottish Labour believes that the wider adoption of technology across our economy, the use of technology in the public sector, the tech sector are all key to economic growth. We believe that Scotland will only be a technology nation if we become world class in each of those areas. That is why our amendment focuses today on making that happen for this and the next generation. That is why it calls on the Government to act urgently. It is a rallying cry for a concerted effort to deliver high and rising standards of STEM education in Scotland so that this and the next generation can lead the way, not just in the economies of the future but in the dreams of the future too. I can confirm that we have time in hand for interventions. I call on Pam Goswell. I am delighted to be closing this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Today's debate has given Parliament the opportunity to acknowledge Scotland's place as a hub of innovation, as the historic home of countless great minds and as a true technology nation. I would like to begin by taking a few moments to pay tribute to some of the great contributions that we have heard this afternoon. I hope that I can cover something from all the speakers with such short time, but now that I know that the Presiding Officer has said that we have a little bit more hand in time, I am sure that I will be able to cover every speaker. My colleague Brian Whittle rightly spoke about how education is what shapes tomorrow's workforce. It provides opportunity and sets a path for an individual's life. However, my colleague Liam Kerr pointed out that this motion utterly fails to appreciate that all the outcomes at once are underpinned and driven by education, whether that be from schools, colleges and universities. I absolutely agree with the member, Daniel Johnson. We have much to do to become a tech leader compared to the rest of the world. However, like the member said, I am also amazed that the motion has no mention of AI. Everybody is talking about it out there, but the motion has nothing about AI in it. It is great to hear from the member, Claire Adamson, about the local work that is being done at the campus of New College Lanarkshire and the work with co-bots. Kenneth Gibson spoke about the CPG on life sciences, which promotes close co-operation points out areas where policy can actually contribute to making Scotland a destination for individuals and companies to innovate and to grow. Martin Whitfield spoke about Sunamp, a company that created thermal battery that stores heat and is world leading and has won many awards. All in Scotland, this great work and this technology is taking place. Ivan McKee rightly raised concerns about the closure of innovation centres and that the Government needs a more joined up approach. Jamie Halcro Johnston said that we must not forget new technologies and new opportunities, for example the Saksford UK spaceport in Shetland. That the UK Government funded Shetland is leading the way, as no Scottish island has done before. Maggie Chapman spoke about sustainable technology and harnessing technology for the good. Richard Leonard spoke about the need for a new innovation strategy beyond politics, whether it is nationalism or not. Cwcab Stewart spoke really well about her constituency and the importance of Strathclyde University, the work that they are doing and key businesses such as Rolls-Loyce and other businesses that they are working with to create new innovation and technology. What I am shocked with, Presiding Officer, is that majority members spoke about education today in their speeches and how important it is today's debate of technology, but yet we have nobody here from education from the Scottish Government, no Cabinet Secretary, no ministers and yet the Opposition have deployed their front benches. Presiding Officer, although there have been such excellent contributions already this afternoon, one of the most important things that I want to speak about to highlight is finance and fintech. It was great to hear that the minister mentioned this sector. I apologise to the member, because I was not here for the debate, but I did come in for the summing up. In relation to education and technology, I attended the Cathered Primary School burn support and art exhibition last night, and much of that on the wall produced by the pupils was digital art. It shows that curriculum for excellence and digital art is embodied in primary schools in my constituency. I am sure that you want to welcome that. I absolutely welcome that, but it is so important that we treat those teachers with respect and have more teachers to teach. It is more in relation to outcomes and inputs. That is something that I have been speaking to local authorities about, but I absolutely welcome any school out there that is doing work that is innovative and with technology. I want to highlight about finance and fintech. It is great that Richard Lochhead, our minister, spoke about the fintech sector today. The Scottish fintech sector has increased by 50 per cent since the beginning of 2020 and already supports over 8,500 jobs in Scotland. It is also projected that the GVA of the Scottish fintech sector will increase to £2.1 billion by 2031, and Scotland is the second-largest centre fintech in the UK after London. When it comes to fintech, Scotland is already punching well above its weight in the UK market. That is why, last year, as convener of the cross-party group of India, I led the first cross-party delegation to India to help Scotland connect with Indian fintech sectors. It is great to see my colleague Sharon here today that went to India with us. I know that Kenneth Gibson and Ivan McKee are one of the deputy conveners on the cross-party group in India. India itself is a world leader in fintech and has the third-highest global fintech adoption rate. They are pushing forward with new technologies such as data-sharing interfaces that can reduce the barrier to digital access across the country. Growing Scotland's fintech sector even further will create more highly skilled jobs in Scotland as well as new business opportunities. However, that will require working closely with leading fintech companies such as India and countries that share knowledge where possible. Going forward, it will be vital for the Scottish Government to play its part in ensuring that the Scottish fintech sector continues to thrive. However, as it stands, the Scottish Government is not supporting our technology sector in the way that it should be. As our amendment highlights, Scotland has the highest tax burden than the rest of the United Kingdom, which risks driving away the top talent that our technology sector needs. Instead of cutting the budget of the Scottish National Investment Bank by £69 million, the SNP should be using SNIB to support innovation in our economy, such as the Scottish space sector. We are also seeing a cut to enterprise trade investment budget of more than £60 million, which is hardly sending the right message to innovators within the business community. Given the SNP's approach to business and innovation, it is hardly surprising that the entrepreneurship rate in Scotland is now lower than the UK average, in conclusion. Scotland is already a leading technology nation, but it has the potential to go even further. Going forward, we must ensure that Scotland continues to be a place where innovation and technology can thrive, as our amendment calls for. Economic growth and growing technology sector should go hand in hand. Too often, we have heard empty promises from the SNP Government on economic growth, but we have yet to see them translate into real policies. But fear not. Once again, the Scottish Conservatives have come to the rescue with our grasping the thistle paper, which helps to set our vision how to create a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship in Scotland. We want to see real vision for economic growth, a vision that encourages the creation of a well-paid, highly-skilled jobs, a vision that is truly keeping with Scotland's history as a hub of innovation, and a vision that I hope the Scottish Government now needs to deliver. I'll do my utmost. I guess that there's quite a lot of points that I could certainly do my best to respond to, and I want to start off by thanking Collcab Stewart for the burns quotations, of course, but also to thank all members for their excellence in most cases. I'm just about always thought-provoking contributions to this debate, which is wide-ranging. Of course, there are so many different dimensions to the future of technology in Scotland that many of the different points raised by members would be worthy of a debate in their own right, and certainly there may be an opportunity to bring back debates in the future on particular subjects and angles raised by members. There's no way you can cover all of those in motions or nine-minute opening speeches, but I'll try to address a couple of the themes that members mentioned in my closing remarks. I also want to thank people outside of the chamber. I posted on LinkedIn, which is a sign of technology, because that wasn't here a few years ago, about the fact that we're having this debate. There was substantial engagement from the technological sectors in Scotland. Excited and welcoming are the fact that Parliament is debating Scotland being a technology nation. Many of the comments that were made by people in the sector echoed some of the themes that members raised across the chamber. There's a lot of food for thought there and a lot to think about as we go forward. It's also just worth reflecting on how fast things are changing at a phenomenal speed. The Parliament is celebrating its 25th anniversary, and a couple of years after the Parliament was up and running in 1999, the iPod was released. Then the SNP Government was elected in 2007. The year the iPhone was released. Facebook, of course, happened in 2004. Since the SNP is in government, we've seen Airbnb, Spotify, Uber and a host of other technological advancements in our society. AI, of course, is dominating the agenda to a great degree, which I'll turn to shortly as well. It's all down to the increasing power of computing, processing power and the internet. AI is taking all of this to a different level. The prospect of quantum computing will change things completely again if that comes to fruition in the coming years as well. It's evident that Scotland's high-tech sectors have captured not just the attention and imagination of this chamber but, of course, the people of Scotland in a wider sense as well. It's absolutely right that that has been the case given the importance of the subject that we're debating today and its fundamental impact on our planet, our lives, our society and our economy going forward. It used to be that when we were growing up some of the technologies that we used to children, we were also using an old age. Nowadays, of course, the technology that you're using as a child has radically changed beyond recognition even 10 or 20 years later when you approach adulthood. That's how fast things are changing nowadays due to computing processing power compared to past generations. We can't even begin to foresee what the situation will be in the next 25 years of this Parliament. It's a challenging situation to adapt in the right way. We've got to be fleet with foots as a country, fleet with foots as a government and the Parliament will take the intervention. Brian Whittle? I'm very grateful, just to go off on a tangent, as it's my want. You raised the prospect of how fast technology is developing. There's quite a lot of fear around AI and where it might end up, around technology singularity. What's the minister's thoughts on that? I have visited Napier University, where they are working on how AI can be used by robots to learn. That does boggle the mind. It is important, of course, that we take advantage of that because that can achieve great things for society. That's why the Scottish Government has commissioned the AI Alliance in Scotland to give us up-to-date advice that we're expecting in the next few months on the risks and opportunities of AI for Scotland. Of course, I'd be delighted to bring that back to Parliament for a debate once that report is available. I want to touch on a couple of the themes that people mentioned. Firstly, digital inclusion. Members in the Labour benches and others mentioned that. That is a real theme of the progress of technology. How do we ensure that people are not left behind and that we bring everyone with us? That's a very big challenge, given the pace at which technology is changing. As members said, it's a very important challenge. Connecting Scotland, of course, is a Scottish Government programme that is delivering partnership with the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. That provides internet-enabled devices, connectivity and digital skills to support people who are digitally excluded. It's issued 61,000 devices since May 2020. There's a lot of other work under way now, part of the new digital inclusion alliance that's being formed with partners. Officials are also looking at a minimum digital living standard, the concept of that and how that could work in Scotland as well. That's an exciting and important concept. That's work in progress, but it's an indication of how the whole issue of digital exclusion has been taken seriously. Liam Kerr. I appreciate that it might be a little difficult for the minister to answer this, because his education colleagues haven't joined him. According to the Scottish Employer Skills Survey in 2021, over a third of applicants for skill shortage vacancies lacked basic IT numeracy and digital skills. What specifically is the Government doing in schools to address this? Minister. Liam Kerr, for raising that point, I was just coming to that theme because a lot of members mentioned the whole issue around education and skills, which of course is absolutely fundamental to the future. I should say that there was employer surveys published in September 2023 that were UK-wide. This is not a Scottish issue, they were UK-wide, where a majority of technology companies said there was a shortage of IT skills. It's a very real issue. It's not just a Scottish issue, it's across all these islands. We face similar challenges and I'm sure that it's the case across Western Europe and not just the UK as well. We do have to work together to address that. I should say that in terms of the Labour Party amendment, we believe that it doesn't characterise the situation today because as a result of Mark Logan's review, we have been taking a number of steps. There are existing steps in place in Scotland that we offer bursaries of up to £20,000 for career changers to train to become STEM teachers. Also, Mark Logan's review has led to other steps that we have been taking. We have formed the Scottish Teachers Advancing Computing Science Organisation, which is run by computing science teachers about spreading best practice in computing science across other schools. There's a suite being created of teaching up-skilling resources and programmes. We also made available £1.3 million for schools to bid for additional equipment to transform their teaching of computing science as well. Over the piece, 280,000 devices have already been provided to learners, so steps are under way and are being taken. I thank the minister for taking the intervention. I don't doubt, and nor does our amendment suggest that nothing is being done, but the fact remains that the amendment is factually accurate. The Government has missed its target on computing science teachers by half. We know that there are fewer people getting involved in those subjects, so it's perfectly fair to characterise the situation as we have done in our motion. I think that the Government will accept that. Pam Duncan-Glancy made a number of valuable contributions to the debate today, and that is one. It's a very serious issue. We take that challenge head on. I'm just simply making the point that the amendment mischaracterises the situation today because a number of steps are in the pipeline as a result of the Mark Logan review. Clearly, we're hopeful that that will deliver results, but that's not reflected in Labour Party's amendment, which is perhaps just a bit too negative, given a lot of the steps that are being taken. I do want to make an important point to the chamber here. I'm lucky enough to be a trade minister, as well as a small business minister, tourism and innovation today in working with the technology sectors. In the last few weeks, I've lost count of the number of people I've been in communication with or met involved in technology in Scotland in their universities or in the private sector. They virtually all say to me the reason why their businesses are expanding in Scotland—I gave plenty of evidence of that being the case in my opening speech—the reason why Scotland is outperforming UK and Europe in terms of the growth of inward investment projects, because I'm told this by overseas companies in my trade-at on as well, is because they want to come to Scotland because of the talent pool we have and the skills we have and the pipeline of skills we have in this country. I absolutely understand that it's a very serious issue looking at a pipeline of skills through our schools and colleges for the future, and that's a difficult challenge, and we have to, as I said, take that head on. We shouldn't talk ourselves down, because the rest of the world is talking about how great the skills pipeline is in Scotland, how talented our people are and how skilled they are for the industries that we're speaking about today. We should recognise that, especially in Burnesday, when we're talking about how Scotland is viewed across the world. We should remember that a lot of people view the fact that we do have a lot of talent in this country. Ivan McKee and others mentioned the innovation strategy, which is under way, of course. Again, that's another big, massive game-changing challenge, is how do we have more companies that are innovative-active, how do we declutter landscape. Can I say to Daniel Johnson that I agree, and I think that Ivan McKee will agree with that as well, that the innovation landscape is far too cluttered. That's outlined in the strategy documents, but speaking as a minister, trying to get my head round the innovation landscape in Scotland is complex and it's cluttered. I agree with the comments in the chamber that we have to declutter this. I'm not quite sure where we'll end up, but it's something that we're looking at in 2024 as part of implementing the innovation strategy. I can also tell Ivan McKee that we're also speaking to universities about their new innovation funds that they're working with, particularly Edinburgh Glasgow and Strathclyde University as well. I mentioned previously the entrepreneurial campuses that are being developed across Scotland to promote that culture with businesses, academia and students working together to create new start-ups. We think that's a very exciting concept as well. As part of that innovation landscape, I mentioned in my speech the amount of investment that's happening across Scotland, which is pretty phenomenal. I can't remember anything like it, and I've been in Parliament since 1999. There's a huge amount of investment taking place in Scotland across the last two or three years alone, getting Scotland ready for the future in terms of the debate that we're having today, but the future of technology, innovation, high-quality jobs and boosting our economy. The £75 million national manufacturing institute for Scotland. The £22 million national robertarium. The £42 million delivery of the tech-scaler network. The £60 million of the Michelin Scotland innovation park. The £1 billion investment that I mentioned over a number of years for digital connectivity infrastructure. The £155 million innovation centres in recent years. Also, most recently, the £88 million for the Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre that other members mentioned as well. The Fraunhofer Centre for Applied Photonics in Glasgow as well, £20.5 million. £40 million for the Aberdeen Biohub, £180 million for the Net Zero Technology Centre in Aberdeen and £1.9 billion investment in the city, region and growth deals, which are full of innovation projects, the length and breadth of Scotland. That's not just Scottish money, a lot of that is Scottish investment. It's private sector, local government of course, and the UK government contributes a number of those projects. But that's a phenomenal investment in Scotland's future and making sure that Scotland's ahead of the game when it comes to being a technology nation. I'll just close because I've got a lot more I can say and I've used my extra minutes already. I want to thank everyone for their contribution and just say that we're a cusp of amazing things in Scotland becoming a technology nation and the potential that holds. The potential holds for the public sector to save money, to deliver better services for people, for health innovation to transform people's ageing and the quality of life they have in later life, as well as tackling some of the challenges that we face in our health profiles of country at the moment. And a whole host of other areas, of course, saving the planet, the energy transition and playing our role to save humankind as well. Scottish technology is the forefront of that. So I believe we've got enormous potential to become one of the world's leading technology nations. We just have to play our cards right in the next few years and make sure that's the case. And I commend the motion department. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes the debate on Scotland as a technology nation and it's now time to move on to the next item of business. And there are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 11958.1 in the name of Brian Whittle, which seeks to amend motion 11958 in the name of Richard Lochhead on Scotland as a technology nation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to a vote and there'll be a shorter suspension to allow members to access digital voting. The question is that amendment 11958.1 in the name of Brian Whittle, which seeks to amend motion 11958 in the name of Richard Lochhead on Scotland as a technology nation, be agreed and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Paul Sweeney for a point of order. I call Paul Sweeney for a point of order. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will vote yes. Thank you, Mr Sweeney. We'll ensure that's recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 11958.1 in the name of Brian Whittle is yes, 44, no 67. There were two abstentions. Excuse me a moment for clarity. The result of the vote on amendment 11958.1 in the name of Brian Whittle is yes, 44, no 66. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 11958.2 in the name of Daniel Johnson, which seeks to amend motion 11958 in the name of Richard Lochhead on Scotland as a technology nation, be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. The Parliament is not agreed, therefore it will move to vote and members should cast their votes now.