edd. Y desapÙr i pregnancygo ddechrau'r bligu i griw yma dim rhai o ôl ei bytegu le i ماud dros cyfle a jarodaethus. Bych seriat lle o unidiog ddylai hynny. Ygrifffordd dw boiled i mi, mae gyfoes yny  ageich PaUR iol meddwleth Gw laughing g ar gyfer ichi yrhowb yn y nad dogen exportedol, ar gyfer huir yma, ond dasgud eich sefyrdd. P partially drafno, d chuckling pam lle i gyflungsulid parlymenau i ddweud ddechrau ddynghwyl yn gweithio'r strategiaeth o gwaithu gennych i gael sydd ymddiwch i gael ganddurthau, ganddurthau, ganddurthau mewn gwiriaeth, ganddurthau mewn gwiriaeth a gwyrdau wneud. Y dweud y Pwblidol Cymru, ynglynchau ffawr, rwyf yn gwybodol yn angen y lleol a yn gweithio'r parlymenau, ond byddwn i'n mynd i'n gwybodol i'n ddechrau i'n gweithio'r of accompanying regulations on 12 May with the second set beginning before the end of May. Those regulations will underpin the operation of health and social care integration across Scotland, including the prescription of the integration scheme, the functions that must be delegated by local authorities, the functions that may or must be delegated by a health board and the national health and wellbeing outcomes. I would encourage everyone with an interest to respond to the consultations that will run through to August. It is not enough simply to improve the organisational and operational structure of care services. We must also continue to develop the standards of care that is provided. The national care standards were created in 2002 to help people who benefit from care services to understand what to expect from them and for service providers to understand the standards that they are expected to achieve. In the 12 years since the standards were introduced, a great deal has changed in how care services are delivered, not least in future from the Public Bodies Act. To keep pace with those changes, we will also begin consulting on new national care standards at the end of May. We not only want to underpin the quality of care, we also want to improve fairness, we want everyone in Scotland to receive a high level of care, no matter what service they use or where they live. A robust inspection regime is key to improving standards, and the care inspectorate is undertaking a wide-ranging review of its inspection methodology during 2014. That review will align closely with the review of the national care standards. It will ensure that an inspection focuses on assessing how well services are respecting the rights of people who use services and promoting positive outcomes. The care inspectorate and health improvement Scotland are also developing a new model for inspection of integrated care for adults, beginning with older people. The new model, which looks at how well health and care systems work together to deliver improved outcomes, will include scrutiny of health board and local authority joint commissioning plans. Working with our partners in COSLAV, we have also been examining the future of residential care. Our joint task force report in this subject was published earlier this year and provides a useful foundation for developing this vital area of the care sector. The task force considered and made recommendations on a number of aspects of residential care, not least increasing personalisation, planning for the kinds of environment we want to be able to deliver care services in, considering how we commission those services, considering how we align our workforce resources to deliver the services and, of course, how we pay for them. The report recommends further work on how the living wage could be applied across the care sector. We have already implemented the living wage for all Scottish Government, national health service and, with our partners in COSLAV, local government staff. We are looking for new ways to encourage and facilitate the adoption of the living wage across the entirety of the care sector. The Scottish Government accepts in principle the main recommendations of the report. We will work in close partnership with COSLAV, the key partners and other key partners taking forward its recommendations to develop a strategy for the long-term transformation of residential care, supported housing, co-housing and intermediate care. Having worked so constructively with the members of the task force, we will engage with these key stakeholders to also look at personal care services that are provided to people under 65 who have complex needs to examine if they are receiving effective support. The issue was most effectively highlighted to me by Mrs Amanda Coppell, wife of the late Frank Coppell, and I am committed to examining the current provision carefully. Although there is a clear understanding of the role of acute and primary care, I believe that more must be done to develop intermediate care services across Scotland. Intermediate care provides a bridge between hospital and home. It helps people to move from illness and injury to recovery and independence. Those step-up step-down services provide a period of intensive support and rehabilitation at home or in a community setting, giving the person the opportunity to fully recover, build confidence and independence and hopefully remain at or return home. Strengthening intermediate care, not least in provision of rehabilitative care, for elderly people as they leave hospital, is critically important. That is just one of the ways to improve flow through hospitals, a key issue highlighted in the report published today by Audit Scotland on Accident and Emergencies. This week, I have written to all territorial health boards and local authorities to identify the areas where further support is needed to enhance intermediate care services. That work will include informing the on-going development of the bed planning tool and long-term NHS care provision. Last week, the independent expert review of the operation of NHS continuing care report was published. Before moving to the recommendations of the review, I should set out that we have been clear that if anyone has been incorrectly charged under the current regime when they should be appropriately reimbursed, we want to make sure that no one ends up in that position. I understand that currently there are a small number of appeals to health boards that are being processed, and I would encourage boards to bring those to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Turning to the review that was shared by the past president of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, Dr Ian Anderson, who assessed the current guidance and its implementation across the country. I am grateful for Dr Anderson's work, and I accept the group's recommendations for the future of NHS continuing healthcare in Scotland with two points that I wish to be clear in qualification. One is that patients being treated as part of the proposed continuing care programme will only remain in hospital for long as that is clinically necessary. Any patient who does not require care in a hospital setting will be discharged from hospital into the community in line with their 2020 vision for treating people at home in the community in a homely setting. Patient safety and the quality of care will be the overriding concerns. Secondly, any changes to the current policy will only come into effect when new guidance is consulted upon and developed, and we anticipate that that will be in April 2015. That means that the current guidance on continuing care remains in place, and any patient clinically assessed as requiring this form of care must receive it. Any patient who is currently in receipt of NHS continuing care in a care home or who is assessed as requiring continuing care before new guidance is put in place will continue to receive the same level of financial support as they would do today. No patient will suffer financial loss resulting from the implementation of Dr Anderson's recommendations. Through Dr Anderson's group's recommendations, we will work with NHS boards in COSLA to develop new guidance for the operation of NHS continuing care, which puts patient quality and safety to the fore. The development of new guidance will be taken forward in parallel with on-going developments in intermediate care to inform how services are designed and will specifically address the particular challenges facing rural communities in this regard. Through self-directed support, we are empowering disabled and older people to take control of their own care. Self-directed support is delivering transformational change to the social care sector, and we will continue to support its implementation. As well as the care provided by local authorities, NHS and other public services, there is another vital community or key to the provision of care in this country, namely unpaid carers. Those people care for the ones that love sometimes to the detriment of their own health and wellbeing, and therefore need our support and commitment. We have invested £113 million since 2007 in vital support for unpaid carers and young carers in Scotland. Our programmes and initiatives cover a range of support, including short breaks, information advice, advocacy, training, income maximisation services and education. We are supporting carers and young carers to continue to care for their families, friends and neighbours, and, most importantly, to rely for themselves alongside their caring role. However, we believe that there are still inconsistencies as to how that support is provided. To address that and ensure that all carers and young carers in Scotland receive the support that they need, we intend to bring forward legislation during this Parliament. Our consultation in this proposal closed last month. We aim to issue a formal response to the views expressed this autumn. Our aim is simple to enhance the support provided to carers and to address the whole carer journey. This Parliament can be rightly proud of introducing free personal and nursing care for the elderly, and I would like to reiterate this Government's commitment to this vital policy. The introduction of the policy did highlight that, when it comes to planning the care that we wish to provide as a Parliament, there is a key part that is outwith our control, the operation of the welfare system. The people of Scotland are already disadvantaged by Westminster Government that refuses to pay attendance allowance to Scots in receipt of free personal care. I believe that Scotland can make its resources work better for the people living here by having a more co-ordinated approach to the delivery of benefits and related services such as health and social care so that this type of loss does not happen. Having control over a welfare system will enable us to work with interested parties to make sure that the benefits system and the application of free personal and nursing care are properly integrated. I firmly believe that a genuinely person-centred approach that sees care provided in the most appropriate setting, be that in the community, primary, intermediate or acute setting, will ensure that everyone who provides or receives care or caring is provided the respect and service that everyone deserves. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business, and it would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question could press the request to speak buttons now. I now call Neil Findlay to ask the first question, please. Thanks, Presiding Officer. Care and care-related issues are amongst the greatest challenges facing the health and social care sector. People continually tell me when asked that the system is in crisis, and that crisis ripples right through the healthcare system. Scottish Labour supports the moves to improve the inspection regime, standards and rights, and support provided for carers. We call upon the Scottish Government to bring forward a debate in Government time so that we can debate in depth all of those crucial matters. It would also allow us to pay appropriate tribute to Amanda Coppell for her fantastic campaign and her humanity and care for others. It is my understanding that the report on continuing care has been sitting on the cabinet secretary's desk for months only to be sneaked out quietly at the start of the bank holiday weekend, so no-one would notice. In his statement, he failed to mention the fundamental point that, if adopted, the changing policy will see patients being charged for their primary healthcare needs when previously that would have been paid for by the state. The cabinet secretary could not quite bring himself to tell the chamber that this afternoon, in his statement, patients with conditions such as motor neuron disease whose patient association was not even consulted on this matter, told they would now have to pay for elements of their on-going treatment, where previously the state provided costs that can average over £700 a week. Families facing the perverse incentive of trying to make sure that their loved ones remain in hospital to avoid crippling personal charges and all of that within a system that is proposed to have no national guidelines and no independent appeals process. The recommendations of the report are a fundamental breach of the guiding principle of the NHS, which is an NHS that is free at the point of need. It is a flawed report, and having taken advice, I believe, the proposals may be illegal. Has the cabinet secretary taken his own legal advice on his charging plans? What consultation has there been with patients and their families? Does the cabinet secretary accept that, for those who are affected by those charges, the NHS will no longer be free at the point of need? I concentrate on the issue of continuing care. Let me make it absolutely clear that Neil Findlay says that the recommendation of this report and our policy is to charge for primary healthcare needs. That is absolute bunkum of the first order. Every part of healthcare in Scotland will remain free and will continue to remain free even when the new guidelines are published. There is absolutely no intention, and I said nothing that could even be interpreted in my statement as saying that primary healthcare needs are going to be charged for, and people living in nursing home care and at home, as well as in hospital, have any healthcare needs met free of charge in addition to their free nursing and personal care. The idea that we would charge for primary healthcare needs is totally absurd. It is not recommended in the Anderson report, and it is certainly not the policy of this Government. He says furthermore that there will be no national guidelines. I specifically said in the statement that we are going to consult and develop national guidelines. How can he reach the conclusion that there are going to be no national guidelines? He also said that there will be no appeal system. Of course there will be an appeal system, and that will be part of the consideration of the national guidelines. When questions are asked and interpretations are made, please could Opposition spokespeople on that side stick to the facts instead of inventing pure nonsense? Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for an advanced site of the statement. The report deals with some fairly fundamental issues, and it does so in considerable depth and in considerable analysis—much of the analysis that we would share. I do think that there has been an ambiguity in public understanding of the recommendations arising in relation to continuing care, and I do not think that they are wholly politically mendacious. A considerable number of organisations have contacted Parliament since seeing the announcement having been made and have concluded, as Neil Findlay did, that there is an intention to charge for non-hospitalised care. I hear what the cabinet secretary has said, and hopefully there can be a debate where those issues are properly teased out and discussed. However, if what he is saying is that, I think that it would be very helpful to correct that ambiguity in the public mind, and for him also to undertake to work with the other parties because we want the best possible consensus underpinning any regulations or conditions or appeal process that might subsequently follow. Presiding Officer, Jackson Carlaw has always made a very reasonable point and a very reasonable tone. Let me reiterate that there is no proposal. There was not a proposal in the report and certainly not government policy in any way to charge for healthcare at all. Where people are getting confused is that people who are currently under the existing regime of complex continuing care, when they are in an NHS bed in a care home, in addition to free personal care, they have their accommodation costs paid. Therefore, the misinterpretation, I think, has been around the issue of accommodation costs. I have made two things absolutely clear. Number one, in the meantime, those costs will continue to be met both for existing patients and any patients coming into that system, pending development of future guidelines and so on. I am more than happy to sit down with all the parties in this chamber as part of that consultation process and ideally try to reach a consensus on the way forward, because I think that it is better if we can reach consensus on those matters because it means that in future there will be stability in the system and people can have confidence that they can expect what kind of support to get when both financially and in other respects as well. However, let me categorically make it clear that there will be at no stage, either before 2015 or after 2015, there will be no system of charging for healthcare needs in Scotland no matter whether somebody is being treated in hospital, treated at home or treated in a nursing home situation. The cabinet secretary may have seen that the number of hours of personal care being provided in Aberdeen City dropped in the last year and there has been an increase in delayed discharge in the city, with many people unable to access appropriate care packages to allow them to return home. Indeed, he heard some of those concerns when he visited the Danestone medical practice in my constituency. Given that the council has sought to externalise its care function to an arms-length company with minimal elected member scrutiny, can the cabinet secretary advise what steps he can take to ensure that the council is reminded of its responsibilities and obligations to our most vulnerable citizens? I am aware of those concerns and, of course, I think that there are problems created by the creation of an alio or the bon accord to run those services, particularly at a time when the whole thrust of policy agreed by everybody in this Parliament is the integration of services. To semi-privatise in a way that looks like what Aberdeen City Council is trying to do is about the disintegration of services instead of the integration of services. I am very much aware particularly of the delayed discharges issue. If you look at Grampian health board and analyser delayed discharges figures, there is basically no fundamental major problem in rural Aberdeenshire. The problem is very much confined to the city of Aberdeen, and much of that is because of the lack of social care provision, whether it is assessment provision or care home provision in the city of Aberdeen. Therefore, I am keen to work with the council, as is Grampian health board, to try to resolve those issues, because the people of the city of Aberdeen require it. However, I think that, at a time when we are integrating services to hand them out to an alio at this particular time, perhaps it was not the wisest thing to do. Cabinet Secretary says that he is looking for ways to adopt the living wage across the care sector, and that is a key recommendation of the future of residential care report. If he is serious about improving the quality of care that is provided to the most vulnerable in our society, he must value those who deliver that care. Can I ask him, therefore, if he is back Labour's amendment to the procurement reform bill next week, to make that aspiration a reality? My colleague Nicola Sturgeon is in charge of the procurement reform bill. I used to be, but Nicola Sturgeon is in charge of it now, and I will take her advice on whether to back the Labour amendment once I have seen it. Obviously, we operate as a team, a collective responsibility. However, in terms of the living wage, very clearly, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that, as part of the drive in which COSLA and ourselves are engaged in driving up the quality of social care in Scotland, there is no doubt in my mind that the introduction of the living wage across the entire sector would be extremely helpful in driving up that quality. We are engaged in the exercise with COSLA on how we take forward that proposal, as well as the other proposals, which are all part of a package to revolutionise the quality of social care in Scotland. The cabinet secretary referred in his statement to the case of my constituent, Frank Cappell. I thank him for the way in which he engaged personally with Mr and Mrs Cappell, including visiting Frank in Kerrymere a few weeks before he sadly passed away. I very much welcome his commitment to examine the present provision of personal care services for under-65s with complex needs, but I wonder if the cabinet secretary is able to offer further detail of how that work will actually be progressed. Can I ask whether he will ensure that at the centre of that consideration we will be looking at the real-life experience of people like the Cappells so that any changes that are ultimately forthcoming match the needs of those requiring the support? Amanda Cappell has brought to the Parliament's notice, as well as to mine the issue of, in her case, dementia with her husband of someone who is under-65. If you just take dementia and that gets applied to other conditions as well, there are 3,000 dementia surfers in Scotland who are under-65 years of age. Of course, they do not currently qualify for free personal care, and there will be people with other ailments in a similar position. When free personal care was introduced, it was for the elderly population, and the rationale for that was that the welfare system in particular benefits, such as now the disability living allowance, is supposed to cater and cover the costs associated with disability, and therefore any additional cost someone has. That is why free personal care did not apply to under-65-year-olds when it was introduced by Henry McLeish as First Minister. The issue that Mrs Cappell has raised is that there are some people who she believes, and she obviously believes that the late Frank Cople and herself were one of the couples affected by that, that they fall between the stools. They were not getting the benefits that would have covered any care home or other costs, and of course, at the time he took Alzheimer's, he was not old enough to qualify for free personal care. I do believe that we have a duty to look at whether that is a major problem, if it is a problem of scale, and if so, how do we address it? That is again why I have referred to the welfare system in my statement, because clearly the interplay between the welfare and benefits system and the health service in areas like that is absolutely crucial. I think that the cabinet secretary has made it as clear as mud regarding the freedoms of or not of continuation of care, whether that is for accommodation or not accommodation, but that aside is the cabinet secretary aware that there is a large dissatisfaction among carers over the discharge from hospitals of those that they care for and the lack of consultation that takes place with clinicians. That poor communication leads to poor discharge planning and can ultimately lead to patients being readmitted when the necessary support in the community is not ready. What plans does the Scottish Government have to introduce a duty on health boards to fully inform carers of hospital admissions and discharges, and will he ensure that that forms a key part of the carers' legislation? I first of all say that most of the issues that I get written to about in relation to delayed discharges are the delay in being discharged because there is very often not an assessment available or a care home facility for the patient to go to. That is why the step down facilities are so crucially important. I have never had any representations about lack of consultation on the discharge process itself, but if Jim Hew wants to provide me with the evidence that that is an issue, I will certainly take it up, and I will take it up not just with the national health service but with the relevant royal colleges. The cabinet secretary gave an update to the chamber as to the current state of development of the bed planning tool, which will help to ensure that our hospitals and communities have the necessary capacity for the right type of number of beds in the right specialities and in the right place for the local populations and when it will be in full operation. The aim of the bed planning toolkit is to provide mandatory guidance on the key steps that all NHS boards should follow when planning bed capacity. The Scottish Partnership Forum, the national strategic group and joint commissioning and the unschedule care programme board, who are not short of bodies in the national health service, are engaging with the Scottish Government on the development of the toolkit. In developing the toolkit, we are considering current NHS Scotland bed planning practice as well as practice in other countries. We plan to engage widely over the summer, with the toolkit being made available to all NHS boards by the end of the year. Deputy Presiding Officer, can I draw members' attention to my declaration as a director of a small nursing home in England? Can I ask the cabinet secretary if he really supports recommendations 2 and 7, because I find them astonishing and a recipe for future postcode problems? They return us to an era where clinicians decide with no eligibility criteria, and I'm quoting from the report, no scoring system, and that is what's in the report. The only thing is the doctor and the team deciding that someone requires hospital care, and four over in recommendations 7, this is backed by an appeal system in which a single doctor decides on their own. No, nothing about consultation with patient representative groups or anything. It's returning to a previous era that I thought we'd come away from. Furthermore, it undervalues his own report on care homes, which stated—the earlier report said that care homes should cope with tracheostomy care, percutaneous endoscopic gastronomy, that's peg feeding, and the delivery of IV fluids and other IV antibiotics. These are usually hospital care, and I really am concerned that without criteria we are going to have a complete mess, and I think that this is frankly a very poor report. I would disagree with the last point, but I fully accept that there is a need for guidance on all of those issues. I said generally in principle that I welcome the report and the thrust of the recommendations, but there are consequences arising from the recommendations, and very clearly they require further consideration. I'm more than happy to consult with other parties on how we take those forward, because I want to get this right. Of course, if there is anything where the devil is in the detail, this is a very good example of it, and particularly I would welcome the expertise of Dr Simpson, who has got a long experience of these matters. Before we publish the guidance, before we decide on the guidance resulting from these decisions, we are going to consult widely, and that's why we're not implementing anything before April 2015, because I want to be absolutely sure that we get it right. I'm perfectly open to concrete and positive suggestions from Dr Simpson, even from Mr Finlay, although I've never heard any, and from other members of the chamber, so I look forward to that consultation. I know that the Care Inspectorate is undertaking a review of its own methodology. Can I refer to my concerns about the current assessment methods in the context of this report on St Ronan's care home in Innerleithan, which states, for example, that the quality of care and support for the residents is weak? At a meeting on Sunday of nine relatives at the care home, every single one made clear that assessment in no way reflected their experience of the care for their elderly relatives. So can I ask the cabinet secretary if he feels that it's sufficient for the Care Inspectorate to review itself, or, indeed, inspect itself? Officer, without being able to comment on any individual case, I accept as a general principle that there is a need for where there is a genuine, very strongly held disagreement on a draft report that there is sometimes, on certain occasions and with certain criteria, the need for a degree of arbitration, particularly where there is a challenge to the factual accuracy of a draft report prepared by the Care Inspectorate. I am already discussing those matters with the board, including the chair and chief executive of the Care Inspectorate, and we have a meeting coming up fairly soon to discuss the issue with residential care home owners and the Care Inspectorate to see whether we can reach an accommodation that is appropriate, while ensuring that the integrity of the inspections of the Care Inspectorate are in no way compromised. I am more than happy to invite Christine Grahame's constituent to that meeting. I welcome the cabinet secretary's statement as it reflects much of the work that has exercised the Health and Sport Committee over the past years. I am pleased that we will finally be consulting on a new set of national care standards, although I have to express some disappointment that has taken so long. Given that the committee recommended such action in 2011 and in this chamber, his predecessor, the cabinet secretary, at the time said that we would have a consultation beginning in the summer of 2012. Given the disappointing delays, can we have a firm guarantee from the cabinet secretary that this will be a full public consultation and not a consultation into a consultation? Can he give us assurances that the Government will be in a position to announce a new set of national care standards by the end of this parliamentary term? First of all, I congratulate Duncan McNeill, who is convener of the Health and Sport Committee for the tremendous work that he has done in this whole area. As well as consulting with other parties in the chamber, I will be keen to consult with the committee on how we take all of the agenda forward. I know that the committee is very interested in how we take it forward. I also give him a firm undertaking that this will be the review and consultation. It will not be a consultation into a consultation, but it will be the consultation that we will be launching. In this case, there has been benefit in the delay, because we now have the legislation and integration past. One of the challenges of the new integrated framework in the future is that we are reconciling the needs of clinical guidance with the national care standards, for example. In taking forward this consultation, one of the things that I am very conscious of, since we are providing integrated services, there needs to be an alignment between national care standards and clinical guidelines and other protocols. The timing may have been quite good, although I will admit that it was not by design. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on the adoption of the living wage across the care sector. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, in any consideration of intermediate or continuing care, the special problems of rural Scotland will be taken into account? I specifically mentioned rural Scotland in my statement, because I am well aware of the issues that are facing remote and rural. There are particular challenges in rural communities that are not just about remote and rural communities. Therefore, when we are commissioning care services, it will be part of the commissioning plans being drafted as we speak and consulted upon by the shadow boards, it is very important for rural, remote and rural and island communities that those commissioning plans fit well with the needs and aspirations of all those communities. Obviously, there are particular challenges in those remote communities that are more difficult to access to communities. For example, the role of telehealth and telecare is extremely important. That is why we are working with the Scottish Centre for Telehealth and Telecare to develop techniques such as more video conferencing and more remote monitoring and management of care. Indeed, we have earmarked £10 million for that very kind of project, which will be of particular benefit to rural, remote, rural and island communities. The reason that primary care needs was referred to was because that is the wording in the 1978 act both in Scotland and in England. I am sure that the cabinet secretary realises that the judgment in England, saying that someone with primary care needs in a nursing home should have all their cost met was in relation to the 1978 act. Has he taken legal advice on that? Since there is a lack of clarity in his statement, will he confirm now that anyone with primary care needs in a nursing home will have all their cost met, including their accommodation cost? Let me reiterate again, and this is the case today, and it will remain the case, that anyone with primary care needs will have those needs met by the national health service irrespective of whether it is a hospital setting, a nursing residential setting or at home, or indeed in a hospice or in many other areas. That is our position today, and that will continue to be our position. Health care needs in Scotland are free at the point of use, and they will remain free at the point of use. Many thanks. That concludes questions to the cabinet secretary on his statement on care and caring. We now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 9963, in the name of Dr Alasdor Allan, on life sciences. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now. If you are ready, Dr Allan, I invite you to speak to and move the motion. Please, 13 minutes. I am proud as Minister for Science to lead the debate on Scotland's life sciences sector. The sector is, as the members will appreciate, extremely important to Scotland. It goes without saying, but I will say it anyway, that, as a nation, we have contributed very significantly to the health sector from penicillin to beta blockers. Scotland's life sciences community not only provides employment for thousands of highly qualified individuals, but it also contributes billions to the Scottish economy. It is worth reflecting that, in 2011, for example, turnover was estimated at around £3.2 billion, with gross value added at around £1.6 billion. However, it should be said that we want to improve on those numbers. That is why, in 2011, the Scottish life sciences industry developed its strategy on creating wealth, promoting health, which outlines its vision for the sector. A key aim of the strategy is to double the contribution that life sciences make to the Scottish economy by 2020. Achieving that will require a strong and co-ordinated effort from business, academia, the Government and the health sector, and will depend in no small way on the talents and skills of those working in Scotland's life science community. We therefore must build on Scotland's international reputation for excellence in the life sciences by ensuring that our firms and universities have access to the best people with the best skills. We want to position Scotland as the destination of choice for talented individuals working and studying in life sciences, a place where they can undertake globally important research, and a place where they can work with companies at the leading edge of science developments. That is why we support life sciences skills through a range of mechanisms and initiatives that cover all ages and all educational levels and operate in our communities, our schools, our colleges and universities and, of course, in industry. Last week, Skills Development Scotland launched its detailed skills investment plan for the sector, created in full collaboration with the industry through the life sciences industry leadership group and the academic sector. The plan has four key aims. Those are building graduate work readiness, improving attractiveness to new entrants, attracting and anchoring key skills, building an accessible and responsible skills system. Each of those themes has a range of actions attached to it, actions that are designed to deliver the maximum benefit to individuals' careers and businesses. An example of all that is the lab skills programme, which Skills Development Scotland, in conjunction with the sector, will start to run next month. The programme is aimed at life sciences graduates and will provide them with hands-on support that will help them to secure a job within the life sciences community. It involves a two-week training course, delivered by Edinburgh Napier University at the state-of-the-art laboratories at BioCity Scotland, and it will focus on developing the strong technical laboratory skills and commercial awareness skills that life science companies need to compete on the highly competitive national and global marketplace. Of course, it is very important, at the same time as talking about graduates, to talk about the importance of starting science education more broadly as early as possible. Support for biology and wider sciences through the curriculum is perhaps a single most important element in encouraging young people to see a promising career in life sciences for themselves. However, we recognise that a number of factors can influence career choice, and that is why, as well as supporting teacher training and CPD, as well as school facilities and equipment, we also fund a range of other initiatives that bring science to life for young people, including science clubs, workshops and shows. Our support for science centres and science festivals across Scotland, worth a total of £2.8 million last year, makes all kinds of science accessible to more than 800,000 people of all ages. The science centres work closely with teachers, with Education Scotland and Skills Development Scotland to ensure their work fits with curriculum for excellence. One example is Glasgow's science centre's bodyworks exhibition. That has been seen by more than 300,000 people since opening a year ago. It gives all ages a chance to find out more about health, exercise and the human body. Scientists are on hand every weekend to explain their research and bring the science to life. A touring version of the exhibition will support the Queen's Baton this summer visiting schools and communities. Across Scotland, I am sure that it will contribute to a lasting Commonwealth Games legacy of a healthier and more active Scotland. In all of this industry, it plays a key role in explaining the science and offering possible career paths. Scotland's world-leading life science sector depends on a continuing flow of new recruits at all levels. Industry is engaging with young people in innovative ways. For several years, LifeScan and Inverness has been involved in the bridge to employment programme, and the company has developed a long-term relationship with several local secondary schools. A new group of around 60 S4 pupils will join the programme in June, undertaking a range of science-related activities that will support science learning as well as skills development. They will have the opportunity to be mentored and to learn business skills, helping their eventual transition from school to further or higher education into work. What it is, as I have mentioned, is important to get the basics right. Curriculum for excellence aims to raise standards, to improve knowledge and to develop skills by providing more coherent and flexible learning opportunities from the age of 3 to 18. It is vital that all our young people are supported in their learning in the critical STEM areas. It is encouraging that a recent Education Scotland science impact report notes that learning and teaching in the sciences in schools is strong, effective and improving, and we must build on those successes. That is why there is extensive support for science teaching and learning that is available from Education Scotland. We are also investing £900,000 in this financial year to support a national programme of teacher and technician professional learning that is delivered by the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre in Recife. Scotland has one of the strongest university research bases in the world, producing 1.2 per cent of all new knowledge and 15 per cent of research classed as world-leading. In 2012-13, Scottish universities attracted almost £1 billion in research funding from a range of funding sources, including government, businesses, charities and the European Union, reflecting the excellence and global reputation of our universities and the quality of their research. In 2012, the Mobius Life Sciences start-up report listed Scotland as the leading location for life science start-up companies. The Government recognises the value of research to Scotland's society and economy, and we have demonstrated our commitment to increasing spend on research and knowledge exchange activities by some 38 per cent since 2007, which represents, it should be said, an extra £100 million. As a result, our higher education expenditure on research and development is the fourth highest among the OECD countries. We have supported novel ideas such as the internationalisation of research pools and more recently development of a network of innovation centres of which life sciences have featured heavily. We have already launched centres focusing on stratified medicine, on digital health and industrial biotechnology. Other centres that deal with technologies such as sensors also have a cross-disciplinary connection with life sciences. What is important to say is that those innovation centres will be demand led. Research, of course, knows no boundaries, either in terms of discipline or in terms of geography. Its success and future funding is predicated on excellence, and Scottish research has plenty of excellence. We can already point to considerable successes in working across European boundaries. The European lead factory for integrated medicine and other international centres, including the Fraunhofer Centre for Applied Photonics and the First Max Planck International Partnership in the UK, which I was happy to be involved in the launch of recently, supporting collaboration across Scotland's research pools. Independence enables us to take decisions in Scotland's best interests, and that applies in research just as elsewhere. If independence is so good, why are you proposing to try to keep the same UK system that we have at the moment? Surely the best way to keep that system is to remain party and I take income. The member will be well aware that research partnerships operate across international boundaries, and he will also be well aware that one of the research council UK leading members, in fact, Professor Paul Boyle, chief executive of the Economic and Social Research Council, indicated to MSPs that he would strongly support Scotland retaining its position in a single research ecosystem in the very circumstances that the member has described. I think that the dual funding system, as I said, is successful. Last week, evidence of the collaboration was very clear with further investment in Dundee. It is this kind of collaboration, both at home and abroad, that typifies Scotland's ability to be a leading player in the international research arena. Collaboration across Scotland with the rest of the UK, within Europe and across the wider world is something that we are determined to continue. Can I just say that I think that I can speak for all of us in the chamber that the success that you have outlined for the life sciences industry has been phenomenal. Will you also acknowledge that that has been achieved with Scotland as part of a united kingdom? I am prepared to acknowledge that, at present, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. I am not proposing to rewrite history. It is a wee bit like one of the arguments that run will the member acknowledge that trains rarely ran in time before the active union. I am not really sure where that development is. Indeed, that was my point. I am not… You anticipated me there. I am not really sure where that argument runs. What I can say is that the member will be aware that over 100 senior academics in Scotland wrote a letter to the herald this very week pointing out that they were more than happy to see an independent Scotland and more than happy to see that independent Scotland operate its research function across boundaries and indeed continue the co-operation that we have internationally. In terms of the key drivers that we have, one of the key tools is to drive the engagement in the Scottish health informatics programme, which is creating powerful new tools for linking patient data. I will come back to you in a moment for linking patient data for research and the FAR Institute, which will be based in part of the biotechnology quarter in Edinburgh. I could go on listing the many successes that there have been in the sector, but I want to conclude by saying that Scotland has every reason to celebrate our life sciences sector and every reason to plan actively for its future growth. I now call on Neil Bibby to speak to you and move amendment 9963.2 up to nine minutes, please, as we are very tight for time today. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Labour welcomes the opportunity this afternoon to highlight not only the importance of the life sciences sector in Scotland but the importance of research funding and of developing our existing expertise too. Scotland does have an outstanding reputation when it comes to life sciences. Our universities are amongst the best in the world, and we are. Our colleagues across the UK have a long, proud history of research, innovation and discovery. On this side of the chamber, we have done our bit to help the good work of our scientists. It was a Labour that introduced a science strategy for Scotland in 2001, which recognised the need to ensure an adequate supply of students from the education system with science qualifications and training to meet the needs of an increasingly knowledge-based economy. It is fair to say that much of what the current Scottish Government has done since 2007 has been a continuation of that approach. The Government's motion today highlights the publication of the skills investment plan for Scotland's life sciences sector by Skills Development Scotland. I welcome that publication. As the minister outlined, the plan's aim is for Scotland's life sciences sector to double its economic contribution by 2020. That is particularly welcome because the previous Government strategy document required an updated action plan. That, of course, is an extremely ambitious target and one that we support, but the real challenge is how we turn that aim into reality. Meeting the skills needs of the sector is vital. There are a number of things that we can do, and the minister mentioned a number of them. We can look at good practice, for example, in areas such as Renfisher, where the science and technology sector is there, and Renfisher Council is working in partnership to raise awareness of the sector, and provide work experience for local students. We should look to build on the sterling work done by further education and higher education, again in my own region, West College Scotland and the University of West of Scotland. They are educating skilled technical staff and graduates who will find work and bring forward innovation in the sector. Fundamentally, we need the Scottish Government to provide an education system that meets the needs of the Scottish economy. The statistics last week on numeracy should be a major wake-up call for the Scottish Government. Standards in numeracy falling among primary school pupils and no improvement in numeracy standards in secondary. How can we properly meet the needs of the science sector when numeracy standards are falling under this Government? I am happy to take a intervention. I thank the member for taking an intervention. The member acknowledged that the curriculum for excellence actually looks at the talents of each individual pupil, and that is the vehicle and the pathway to excel our students of the future. I think that the way our students will excel is if we have an education system that is meeting the needs of pupils in the country as a whole. I do not think that an education system where numeracy standards are failing is that education system. This is a major area of concern and it needs urgent action from the Scottish Government. I hope that the minister will respond on the issue of numeracy later on in the debate. Presiding Officer, this afternoon it is also important to discuss and recognise the important contribution that UK research council funding makes to our universities. The role that helps maintain our reputation as a leader in the life sciences field. In addition to having a skilled workforce, key to our scientific standing in the world is the research funding that our universities receive. For the record, I am glad to see that the Scottish Government acknowledged the contribution that UK research funding makes to Scottish universities. I am pleased to see the SNP Government's statement in its recent paper on the clear benefits to Scotland and the rest of the UK from maintaining shared research councils. The facts speak for themselves. In 2012-13, Scottish higher education institutions secured £257 million, that is quarter of a billion pounds, of UK research council grants. That represents 13.1 per cent of the UK total. Significantly more than 8 per cent of UK gross domestic product, or 8.4 per cent of the UK population. I am happy to give way if one of the SNP members wants to tell me, again, if independence is so good, why are you not preparing to set up an entirely independent research council? The first question that I was going to ask is that the member will, I am sure, acknowledge that the spending that the UK Government makes, whether it is through the research councils at UK level or elsewhere, is not an act of charity. It does come from taxation and that where Scotland does better than its population share, as the member mentioned, does the member not also acknowledge that that is because of Scottish excellence in research projects and that the research projects are awarded on the basis of excellence, not on a political or charitable basis? Scottish universities are excellent, so are UK universities. Minister Harvard and Yale are excellent universities, but they are not in the United Kingdom. There are great universities, excellent universities in Europe and throughout Asia. They are not in the United Kingdom either. How much money does the UK research council give to those universities? If you want to maintain UK research council funding, we should stay in the United Kingdom. The SNP, by its obsession with independence, put in university research funding at severe risk. As Professor Paul Boyle from research councils UK has said, we give all our funding to institutions that have been accredited to receive RCUK funding, which means that they are UK-based institutions. It is not only research councils that provide UK Government funding for research. For example, UK Government departments such as the Ministry of Defence and Department of Health have significant R&D programmes. In addition to public funding, the UK's network of charitable organisations fund significant amounts of research. Those organisations invest approximately £1.1 billion per annum, 13 per cent of which was spent on research in Scotland. In 2012-13, Cancer Research UK spent £34 million in Scotland, including at the University of Stirling, which is home to Cancer Research UK's Centre for Tobacco Control Research. Sharmila Nebjani, chief executive of the Association of Medical Research Charities, expressed her worry. She said that it may be that, going forward, people would then think twice about setting up an institute in what became an independent country. If that is not alarming enough, they welcome trust. A leading charitable organisation that has invested over £600 million in Scottish health research over the last decade on the implications of independence has said, a future commitment and the eligibility of Scottish institutions for trust support would need to be reviewed. There is no guarantee that our funding would be maintained at current levels. That is the welcome trust, the UK organisation, which has a requirement for match funding on institutions in Ireland, but no such requirement on institutions in the United Kingdom. Presiding Officer, in Scotland and throughout the UK, we have a brilliant system of research. If independence was so good, the SNP would be proposing an entirely independent system. They are not. There are no guarantees if we left the UK that we would keep the UK research funding and there are no precedents. It is naive and extreme to vote to leave the UK when we want to keep the benefits of being part of the UK. If we want to keep the benefits of being part of the UK, it is therefore obviously common sense to be in the UK. Presiding Officer, essential to building the life sciences sector in Scotland and throughout the UK is developing the excellence and expertise that we already have, not only in our universities but in our companies as well. One such company, of course, is AstraZeneca, who has their global headquarters here in the UK, and is currently the subject of £63 billion takeover by American company Pfizer, subject of our amendment today. I noticed that the minister did not even reference that in his 10-minute speech. Members will be aware that the Labour Party is calling for a thorough assessment and for public interest tests to be applied to that type of takeover. Not only because the proposed takeover is worth an estimated £63 billion, because we cannot underestimate how important AstraZeneca's research and development is to the UK. As well as being home to its global headquarters, the UK is also home to AstraZeneca's global research and development facility, and they invest over £1 billion in research and development within UK operations. They contribute £3.8 billion gross value-added annually to the UK economy and make up around 2.3 per cent of total UK exports of goods, a total of almost £7 billion. At both a local and national level, they work closely with the NHS, including NHS Grampian. They made a recent grant of £20,000 to the University of West Scotland. We believe that there should be a public interest test on such takeovers. Many other Western economies have such tests in the UK, too. I hope that other parties across the chamber will support Labour's call. It is all very well for us to talk about how important life sciences are, but we cannot ignore the potential impact that such a major takeover will have. I move the Labour amendment in my name. Many thanks. I now call on Liz Smith to speak to her and move amendment 9963.1. Liz Smith, up to six minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I doubt that there are many more important issues to discuss in terms of skills investment than the life sciences. There are significant issues within this area. The impact on the economy has been mentioned. The clear need to better align public and private sector investment, the future of research funding and, of course, the enormous difference that life science can make to people's health. Quite rightly, much of the plan focuses on the crucial need to put in place a quality resource base that is fully funded and attractive to new investment. It needs to be innovative, intellectually coherent, but also thoroughly practical when it comes to the delivery of science. Let me turn first to the issues of higher education funding, most especially because life sciences contributes 55 per cent. There is a great deal of debate about the subject in the context of the referendum. The reporting of which I have to say has not always been particularly well informed. For me, the central issue is not just about the scale of the financial funding, which will be available in the future, but about its qualitative edge on how best to secure the extraordinary level of the technical and financial economies of scale, which have been such a key feature of the Scottish success that the minister alluded to. Would that be better maintained in an independent Scotland or as part of the UK? There have been interesting views expressed on both sides, as we saw on Newsnight on Tuesday. However, to decide who is right, there needs to be a very careful study of what factors have already led to that success in Scotland and what factors are likely to be the mainstay of future development. Let me start with the comment about the global position, because success in this field needs to be on the international scale. The technology behind life sciences is changing fast all the time, so too is the relevant knowledge exchange and the interdependence of public and private investment across the world. The white paper is very clear on page 452 that the Scottish Government believes that there are substantial current benefits—something that Neil Bibby mentioned for the academic business communities and charities in Scotland—but even more interesting, when it says that it is clear that they benefit from, and I quote, maintaining long-term stability in research funding and systems that support initiatives of scale. Two words are important there—stability and scale. I have no doubt that research funding would not dry up in an independent Scotland—I think that it is ludicrous to suggest that it would—but there is also no doubt whether or not you support the UK's current model of research council funding or the subscription model, which I understand is being promoted by the SNP. If there was independence, there would be a change to the funding formula. That is clear in the white paper. Therefore, that draws into the question by its very nature the issue of the stability. How well that significant change would be seen in the global context, particularly as time after time, the big research councils are identifying the basis for their strong investment in Scotland is the strength of the current economies of scale that are promoted by being part of the UK. They are very clear about that. If we lose those economies of scale because of uncertainty, even if it was just a short-term uncertainty, we could lose some of the competitive advantage at a crucial time of international development. The fact that 15 per cent of UK bioscience research funding comes to Scotland is about the UK economies of scale. That is very clear in the minds of many who work in our medical schools in universities such as Aberdein and Dundee. It is also why the £20 million of the Stratified Medicine Scotland Innovation Centre that the minister mentioned could bring something like £68 million into the Scottish economy. I thank the member for giving way. The member mentions economies of scale. Of course, the economy of scale that is often referred to in this context is the economy of scale being part of a common research area, not being part of a common state. As I understand it, the subscription model that is being proposed by the SNP is on the basis of some kind of per capita or geographical allocation of that. You said in your own comment that one of the reasons why Scotland has been so entirely successful is because we have gained it on merit, and that merit has been absolutely derivative from the UK economies of scale. What I am saying is about the white paper. That draws into question whether the certainty of that would still remain in independent Scotland. That is the concern. The minister referred to comments that we had in the academic community, but the majority opinion in the academic community is quite the opposite, and we have to recognise that. Secondly, could I say something a little bit about the STEM subjects and the Scottish baccalaureate? If we were really driving home on that, we would have to be a little concerned about the uptake in the Scottish baccalaureate. I do not just mean for science subjects right around the board, because I think that it is failing to capture the imagination of anyone in education. The uptake, as I understand it just now, is only 142 pupils across Scotland who took up the science baccalaureate in 2013, which was a reduction on the one from 2012. I think that we have to address some of the issues when it comes to the attraction of the STEM subjects and the attraction of something like the baccalaureate. That is a key issue to encourage people into the study of life sciences. May I just say, Presiding Officer, that we are happy to support the Government's motion, but I think that we need far more detail on some of the aspects of encouraging people to come in. We are also happy to support the Labour amendment. Can I move the amendment in my own name? Many thanks. Very tight for time. As I said, I now call on Mark McDonald to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm up to six minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have a lot of things I want to cover in my speech based on local issues in Aberdeen, but I cannot help but point out that it is a very interesting assertion for Liz Smith to make to claim that she knows what the majority opinion in the academic community is. I do not know what the majority opinion in the academic community is, but I know, however, that a letter appeared in the Herald signed by over 100 academics, which spoke about the strength of research that would exist within an independent Scotland and also suggested that there are already bilateral agreements that exist, for example, between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. I am not going to take an intervention on that point. For example, the universities of Alistair and Belfast benefit from research funding from Ireland, so it is not just about the UK gifth to other places. It is also about cross-border funding that exists in other ways. I failed to see any argument from either of the Opposition parties that suggested that that would somehow be threatened by an independent Scotland. If the excellence is there, the research funding will follow that excellence. Aberdeen, Presiding Officer, has a strong record of a proud history and an exciting future in terms of life sciences. Professor John Mallard and his team at the Aberdeen University developed the first MRI scanner. The first chair of medicine in the English-speaking world was created in 1497 at the University of Aberdeen. The Nobel Prize for the Discovery of Insulin went to J.J.R. McLeod, who was a student of the University of Aberdeen. The university is in the world's top 200 universities for teaching quality and research. There are seven institutes in the city of Aberdeen that carry out life science research, including, for example, the renowned Robert Research Institute and also the James Hutton Institute previously, the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute. Colleagues and I visited a company in Aberdeen based at Crabston in my constituency called Nova Biotics, which is a clinically-based company and is a spin-out company. I saw a press coverage recently around the strength of spin-out companies from Scotland's universities in Nova Biotics. They are studying a technology based on peptides, which are small chains of amino acids for those of us who are not scientists. They are also developing a range of drugs and treatments that tackle medical issues, ranging from fungal nail infection to cystic fibrosis and bloodstream infections. There is a range of work going on at that company. It was very good and very encouraging to visit it and see the work that is going on there and to look at the future potential for that company within the city of Aberdeen. The minister highlighted the need to produce greater numbers of science students and to encourage greater interest in the sciences. There is a lot of good work being done on that in the city of Aberdeen. On Monday, I will be going to meet with the University of Aberdeen's public engagement with the research unit, or PIRU, as it is shortened to, who are doing a range of work involving encouraging young people to take more of an active interest in the sciences, whether that is through their work through the STEM network, whether it is through the Tech Fest Festival, the Science Festival in Aberdeen that runs a family weekend each year, and it also has events for primary schools and secondary schools that can connect people to STEM subjects, whether it is through having researcher-led science events for schools and families during the University of Aberdeen May festival, which is taking place this month, whether it is through the initiative that they run the cafe junior events where researchers from the university go to schools to discuss particular issues of relevance and interest, which then encourages discussion and debate with pupils. Those are all things that are being done to try to encourage young people to get more involved and to take more of an interest in science subjects. The minister also spoke about science centres. One of the interesting things in the atmosphere in Aberdeen is a fantastic centre, and I thoroughly recommend it to members, particularly if they want a good family day out, because the kids can be entertained for hours on end by some of the stuff that is going on at that centre. One of the things that we need to emphasise is that science can also be fun, and science is fun, particularly for children, some of the experiments that you can do and teach children which they will take a great interest in. With that in mind, I wondered whether the minister has had any discussions with his colleague Eileen Campbell regarding the possibility of looking at how we can link science into the play strategy that the Scottish Government is promoting at present and perhaps have that link being drawn so that we can encourage children through play to take more of an active interest in science. My daughter's nursery recently had a dress as what you want to be when you grow up day, and my daughter chose to go as a doctor, so she'd better hope that she gets her brains from her mother. However, it brought home to me the fact that there are issues around attracting, not just attracting women to study STEM subjects, because I think that the trend in terms of female students is actually quite good, but it's at the point at which it comes to careers and the development of careers that there are issues that need to be addressed. There was a Westminster report looking at women in science, which highlighted the fact that, for example, early academic STEM careers are often characterised by short-term contracts, which often coincide with the period of time that many women are looking at the possibility of starting families. Therefore, it's very difficult for them to get a foothold in a career at that stage. They also highlighted that, for example, taking a career break can often have an impact on research grant availability later on in the career, and that is something that seems to disproportionately affect women in STEM subjects compared to men. Those are issues that need to be challenged, and I'd be interested to know from the minister's perspective what work is being done by the Scottish Government to look at that, so that when women graduate with STEM subject degrees, there is the opportunity for them to have a full career in a STEM subject area should that be the choice that they make. I have been interested in the life sciences for quite a few years. A year or two ago, I used to go around saying how wonderful the life sciences were in Dundee. I better leave that particular subject to my colleague Jenny Marra, but more recently, I have been able to say what a great flagship life sciences centre we have here in Edinburgh. I have been interested first of the because of the intrinsically interesting nature of the subject matter of the line sciences, but also because of how important it is for the Scottish economy, and it is a real success story of the Scottish economy. I think that it is contributing about £3 million to the Scottish economy with 650 organisations employing more than 33,000 people. The Scottish Life Sciences Association, which is an organisation comprising many of those employers, in its statement of intent for innovation, emphasised the importance of partnership working in the life sciences government—and that means both governments, NHS Scotland, industry and the research community. The Scottish Life Sciences Strategy in 2011 also had partnership as a key theme. For example, in terms of the NHS, that strategy said that the NHS should be centre stage as a key customer for the Scottish Life Sciences businesses, and that it should be a pivotal stimulation of innovative products. In the strategy that was launched two weeks ago, again, we have quite an emphasis on the NHS and the Stratocide Medicine Innovation Centre at the Southern General Hospital was certainly featured in that document. One other thing that I was slightly concerned by in that skills document was the information that it had about the number of students participating in life sciences at FE colleges, because it said that that fell by more than a quarter between 2007-8 and 2011-12. There does not seem to be any explanation in that skills document about why that happened, so that clearly is a matter of concern. I suppose that there appeared to be some good news in that, because it said that two-thirds of the FE students in life sciences were women, so that is obviously positive. However, we are reminded of the wider issues in terms of gender and STEM subjects, and I am reminded of the Royal Society of Edinburgh report recently that said that, yes, there are quite a lot of women trained in STEM subjects, but the majority of them do not work in those areas. That is clearly an issue that needs to be looked at as well. In terms of the partners as the NHS, but also there is industry and the research community. We have heard quite a lot in the debate already about UK research council and independence. Neil Bibby quoted the figure, which is well known about 13.1 per cent of UK spend when we are 8 per cent of the population. The minister quoted one leading member of the UK research council, but the fact of the matter is that the research council UK, as an organisation, said that it was misleading to suggest that they would support independent Scotland remaining part of the UK research council. Liz Smith reminded us that the majority of opinion in the academic community in Scotland is that there are serious grounds for concern. I am clear that that is just one of those matters of doubt and uncertainty that surrounds the whole debate about independence. Surely SNP members can at least admit that the current system is benefiting Scotland. I can never get SNP members to agree one positive feature of being part of the UK, but surely in the debate today they can at least say that, as far as research funding goes, it is very positive for Scotland to be part of the UK. One of the other partners in the industry, Neil Bibby, was quite right to raise the whole issue of fires. Ed Miliband has written to the Prime Minister calling for a change in the law to ensure that a public interest test on such corporate deals should be applied. The issue really is whether the takeover is good for jobs and growth, whether it will protect knowledge skills and the research base and whether it will support long-term investment in the UK. I think that it was Neil Bibby or perhaps someone else talked about AstraZeneca's record on R&D. I am afraid that although Pfizer says that they are committed to investing in R&D, they gave similar assurances when companies were acquired in the US and Sweden and research facilities were shut down and thousands of high-skilled research jobs were lost. Ed Miliband is quite right to be raising that issue. Of course, the final partner in all this or the partners is the two Governments. I am reminded what funded the £24 million for the Edinburgh backwater in 2009. It was £12 million from Scottish Enterprise and £12 million from the UK Strategic Investment Fund in 2009. It was very interesting to read the report of the UK Strategic Investment Fund that year because who was there in the preface, but Lord Mandelson, the Minister of the Time, said that areas where targeted intervention by government can unlock viable technological development. That is what the fund would support and we have benefited from that UK funding. I have only got one minute left, so I need briefly to mention some of the great work that is being done in the Edinburgh biocorter. The first company was Fios, and I do not know how to pronounce some of those companies' genomics, which provides biomarker analysis services through interpreting data produced by gene sequencing. Biomarkers also feature in Moenlaeke, a Swedish company that detects antibiotic-resistant bacteria through the biomarkers. Two other companies I will mention are I2I Diagnostics, the commercialisation of innovative field analysis, which is particularly benefiting site tests on children and frail elderly people. Finally, I2I Biomedical deals with research development and commercialisation of regenerative medicine. It is absolutely fascinating work, but it is also crucially important work in terms of the development of services and care for people with various healthcare needs, but it is also, of course, vitally important for the Scottish economy. Thank you very much. I call Eileen McLeod to be followed by David Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this afternoon's debate on an issue of fundamental importance of Scotland's economy and the future direction of our health and social care system. I very much welcome last week's publication of the Life Sciences Skills investment plan. As the minister has said, Scotland starts from a strong research base, having already established an impressive reputation for excellence in our life sciences. There have been substantial investments in research and development, as others have pointed out, for example, in the network of three innovation centres for stratified medicine, centres and imaging systems and digital health that were announced by the First Minister last April. Those are pioneering projects that, by bringing together academia, industry and other key partners, which have been described by our health secretary as the triple helix, will provide Scotland with a platform for delivering practical solutions to shared health and care challenges on a local, national and global scale. We have added to that the £100 million investment in the partnership between Bilesady Scotland and Dundee University, which places Scotland at the heart of international efforts to discover new drug treatments as part of the European Innovative Medicine Initiative, as well as last week's £8 million investment by the Scottish Funding Council in the new national phenotypic screening centre. We have to conclude that Scotland is already a major destination for life sciences investment in research and development. As the minister pointed out earlier, the skills investment plan sets out the useful steps that we need to take to build graduate readiness, improve the attractiveness of the sector to new entrants, attract and anchor key skills and build an accessible and responsive skills system. By building up our life sciences capabilities, we will enable us to create and retain a talent pool of researchers and skilled workers who are able to meet the professional aspirations in Scotland because we want to attract highly skilled young people to Scotland, we want them to stay in Scotland and, of course, to nurture our own home-grown talent. The Scottish Life Sciences Strategy from 2011, creating wealth-promoting health, set out the vision and strategic direction that, in turn, informed the skills investment plan. It has a 2020 mission to double the economic contribution made by Scotland's life sciences industry and establish Scotland as the location of choice for life sciences companies. The strategy that Malcolm Chisholm highlighted also talks about the demographic challenge facing health and social care, as well as the opportunities that demographics present in areas such as assisted living through digital health and mHealth, and personalised medicine, where we can better target treatments to individual patients. In turn, I would like to make some progress. That in turn links to the NHS 2020 vision for health and care in Scotland and its associated route map. We know that innovation is key to achieving that vision, and we need the life sciences not only for its substantial contribution to the nation's economy but also because, as a society, we stand to benefit enormously from the research and innovation that will help us to care for our ageing population. Colleagues will have previously heard me talk about the fantastic opportunity that Scotland has to take its world-leading digital health technology to the next level through the international consortium bid that is being led by Edinburgh University to establish a European Institute of Innovation and Technology, knowledge and innovation community in the area of healthy living and active ageing called Life Kick, which is successful and will attract significant funding from the new EU horizon 2020 programme. I previously outlined the benefits of the Scottish-led UK Life Kick bid in this chamber, but what I will say is that the kick enables us to pull excellent academic clinical and industry expertise across Europe in a way that seeks to transform the future delivery of health and social care and improve public health. However, what that also emphasises is that all knowledge knows no boundaries and research crosses borders. If Scotland can, as it does, demonstrate excellence in the field of life sciences, the investment will surely follow. If Scotland is well positioned, as we are, to undertake research and innovation, which will be of fundamental importance to our European partners who face similar health and social care challenges—let me finish this point—then the resources will still come to Scotland. Of course, there is more that we can do to expand this growth sector of Scotland's economy, and that is very much what the skills investment plan is about. We have huge opportunities such as the kick bid to use our unique combination of resources and knowledge to undertake work of international significance. With the economic levers that we have at our disposal that only independence will deliver, we can use the advantages of being a small, agile European country to collaborate across boundaries and borders, and we will continue to promote the Scottish higher education brand on the world stage, giving us a competitive edge in attracting talented academics to Scotland and to increase the ways that research can be translated into sustainable economic growth. In closing, we should be confident that Scotland already has a strong research base on which to build for the future and an innuable international reputation in this field. Both, I am confident, will absolutely flourish in an independent Scotland and I support the motion in Alasdair Allan's name. Members note that, if they are not immediately called for an intervention, they should resume their seat if the member wishes to call them, they will then do so. David Stewart is followed by Linda Fabiani. Scotland and the UK, as we have already heard, have a proud joint heritage to discovery in life sciences. For example, Sir Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin, Crick and Watson's discovery of the double helix, the structure of DNA. As we heard earlier from Mark McDonald, Professor John McLeod from Aberdeen, who in 1922 discovered insulin. I would like to focus on the health implications of life sciences with particular reference to diabetes as co-convener of the cross-party group. This is an important debate today, as this industry is innovative, it is dynamic and it is growing faster than the economy as a whole. Of course, there are major implications for improvements to the quality of life and step changes to health, agriculture and medicine. As we have heard already in this debate, the industry is highly integrated within the UK and has had a track record going back over 40 years. The UK hub of life science has one of the most successful hubs globally. One of the largest life science operations in Scotland, as we heard from the minister earlier, is LifeScan in Inverness at Johnston and Johnston Company. The original company was set up in 1995 to design and manufacture glucose test strips and to design electronic metres for the global diabetes market. There are more than 1,000 highly skilled and talented staff employed in the Inverness facility, which I had the pleasure of visiting just a few short months ago. It is highly regarded as a centre of excellence for those working in the field of diabetes. With a focus on future development, LifeScan is committed to creating a world without limits for people with diabetes. LifeScan Scotland's main product range includes the popular one-touch brand of blood glucose monitoring systems, which are available globally. The company has also developed diabetes management software, control solutions and lancing devices, and in addition produces the specialist test strips that work as many of the metres in the one-touch brand line. The original company started with just a handful of employees and is now one of the largest private sector employers in the Highlands and Islands. In a snapshot, it illustrates the growth potential of the life science industry in Scotland as a whole. It is also important to note that the company fund has seen your academic post in UHI in the shape of Professor Ian Meghson, a good example of the excellent collaboration between industry and academic community. LifeScience research does not mean obscured, dusty, little red academic tombs, but real quality of life-step changes to patients. Let me give you an example. Last year, LifeScience researcher, Dr Roman Havorko, created a historic diabetes landmark by developing the home use of artificial pancreas. That step offers real hope for the future for people with type 1 diabetes, no longer have to monitor blood glucose levels and with a better chance of living a long and healthier life. The artificial pancreas is a closed-loop system that monitors blood glucose levels and uses this information to adjust the amount of insulin being administered by the insulin pump. That ensures that the person is always getting the right amount. The idea for the system has been talked about for a long time with LifeScience researchers, but they have had to proceed cautiously. Having too much or too little insulin is potentially harmful, so malfunctions with the technology have to be avoided. In 2007, researchers completed a trial where people with type 1 diabetes used artificial pancreas in a hospital setting that cleared the way for a new trial of the prototype device at home. As we heard earlier, Scotland punches above its weight in terms of research, securing £247 million of research council grants—30.1 per cent of the total—and gained 13 per cent of the £1.1 billion pot from the Utreet's Charities research budget. LifeScience does well out of those funds. As the school development Scotland report highlights, the university sector also plays an important role as an employer. LifeScience has account for 55 per cent of total Scottish university's research funding, attracting 15 per cent of UK academic bioscience research funding. Within my region of the Highlands and Islands, hand-sized enterprise has recently provided £3 million funding for the LifeScience unit, which will be part of the new Inverness campus. The whole project could support 6,000 jobs over the next 30 years and generate about £38 million for the regional economy. That type of investment is vital, not only to provide the facilities that are needed for LifeScience but to ensure that training and skills development is available to young people to exploit the job opportunities that the sector offers in the future. LifeScience is an exciting industry. There has been breathtaking and groundbreaking work in diabetes and regenerative medicine, and there has been a convergence of digital and healthcare technology. The future will, of course, present huge demands in terms of school development. There is also, on the wider level, huge barriers to entry. For example, it takes an average of $1 billion and 20 years to develop new drugs. Other western nations, such as the United States and Germany, have developed simpler regulatory processes to improve new drugs, so there is competition on the horizon. However, going back to Haill, the building of our future report makes a clear commitment to growing life sciences in the Highlands and Islands. The key projects, such as the European Marine Science Park in Nagail and the Alexander Graham Bell Centre in Elgin, will make the area more attractive for inward investment. At Scottish level, the Health Science Scotland partnership between science, academia and business will provide a single point of contact for pharmaceutical and biotechnical companies to develop research programmes. Finally, I would say that Scotland is well placed to become part of a global hub of life science, a key contributor to sustained economic growth, as well as providing a step change in the quality of life for patients. Many thanks and I now call Linda Fabiani to be followed by Roderick Campbell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm really pleased to speak in this debate and I, like others, welcome the skills investment plan. It seems to be a follow-on from the 2011 life sciences strategy and it's very, very welcome, because indeed, as it says in the Minister's motion, support for innovation in life sciences is critical for the development of Scotland's future economic success. I think that we should also remember the other side of that, too. What leads on from that is so important that we develop strategies for the practical applications, which that innovation brings, makes possible, and that then, as others have mentioned, improves the lives of millions of people across the globe. The Scottish Enterprise life science source book records more than 230 companies employing more than 10,000 people in the west of Scotland. That's about 36 per cent of Scottish life science companies, and East Kilbride, the town that I represent, has a vital role to play in all of that. The town hosts the Scottish Enterprise Technology Park and we have a range of science, small and medium enterprises. We have multinational companies and we have academic organisations. I'm hoping that just mentioning a few of those will entice the Minister to come along to the science park and spend the day visiting some of those companies to see some of the practical applications, as well as the great innovations that go on in East Kilbride. There's a mental item company limited, which is a supplier of high-quality healthcare products. I bet there's no-one sitting in the chamber today that doesn't have a tube of deep heat in their bathroom cabinet. Let me tell you that it was made in East Kilbride. We also have the multi-award-winning ferring-controlled therapeutics, with estimated growth of over 10 per cent per year even in this current economic climate. It's growing in our town in terms of capital investment and, indeed, staff numbers. I understand that there will be very soon unveiling a new product, so watch out for that. Because of the brilliance of the academics who work in this field, because of the brilliance of the employees and places such as ferring-controlled therapeutics, the mental item company and many others, it's because those people are recognised as innovative and sector leading, because they work jointly across borders all over the world in doing this kind of stuff. That's why Scotland generally gets more than its population share of research funding. It's not because funders are being nice, it's because our university is a world class and because our research is some of the best and most cited in the world. No, thank you. I will go back to East Kilbride to talk about this as well. In East Kilbride, we have a facility that I have referenced many times before, the Scottish University's environmental research. It's an excellent academic research unit with a varied research output covering physics, earth sciences and biomedical sciences. It is interdisciplinary, it's inter-institutional and it's international in its collaboration. It's been said, in fact—I think that I read it on their website—that SUARC covers everything from outer space to the outer hebrides. Another reason for the minister to come along to East Kilbride is that it's always wonderful. I recognise that. I've only got a couple of minutes left. I started by talking about the action plan. Yes, it's good and I see it all, but as so much—you get investment plans, you break it down and you look at all the things that are happening within it or, should I say, all the ambitions that there are for it. I sometimes worry that it's back to that practical application that we sometimes fall down on. I would like the minister to have a thought about it, not necessarily respond to me today, but to have a thought out and respond to me on the idea of reviewing this, of monitoring and seeing how it goes. I notice that there's to be a formal review of the action plan in 18 months, and I hope that I can be reassured that that doesn't mean that there is going to be a constant reviewing and a constant monitoring of what we're doing over that 18 months. I think that it's absolutely crucial to take the experiences of those who are already doing so much to enhance the curriculum of excellence work that the minister talked about, to enhance the idea of industry getting involved with academia and doing joint research, to enhance the idea of graduates wanting to stay in Scotland and work in the biomedic centre. I notice that we're looking at expanding the Oxbridge biotech roundtable across Scotland. That's great. I see that we're trying to have more industry and school engagement. That's great, too. Can I be assured that we're doing that kind of stuff, that folk like Sue Eck, who are already taking in internships from local school leavers and has links already with fifth and sixth year pupils as summer interns and carries out workshops right across schools in the area? That kind of thing is getting taken on board. We're tapping into the expertise of those people and not just trying to start all over again. The expertise is there, let's use it and move forward. The Life Sciences sector is one of the keystones of Scotland's economy. It's one of the jewels in Scotland's research crown. It's fair to say that the support given to the sector by successive Scottish Governments has helped Scotland emerge as a world leader in life sciences. The life sciences sector is a central reason that Scotland punches above its weight in the UK-wide competition for research council grants, as we know, and why we have the most citations worldwide per unit of GTP and why we are second only to Switzerland, another small independent country, in the number of citations per paper published. No thank you, knowledge knows no boundaries and research crosses borders. I don't want to labour this point, but a single UK research area with shared research councils is in the interest of both Scotland and the rest of the UK, and this position, as we know, and as the minister has already indicated, is supported by Professor Paul Boyle of the research councils UK and others. By its very nature, science is an international and collaborative effort. It would be absurd to suggest that this would stop upon independence. I see no reason notwithstanding what Opposition members have said why, to coin a phrase, we cannot have the best of both worlds with independence. The inclusion of the life sciences is a key sector in the Scottish Government's economic strategy, is not a surprise, is a sector with a high growth potential and the capacity to boost economic productivity. This is, of course, why our Government has established life sciences enterprise areas in several locations across the country. The support provided by the Government through the incentives available has, and will continue to, encouraged businesses in bringing forward their investment decisions. It provides the necessary support for business startups to become established and to compete internationally. This innovative approach is helping to build upon the momentum generated by the life sciences sector. In 2007, the universities of St Andrews, Stundee, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde came together to pool their expertise in the Scottish University's Life Sciences Alliance, SELSA. The pooling enhances research, training and global credibility and connects the Scottish life sciences community. SELSA has helped our universities in equipping themselves so that they face the challenges of global research competition head on. It is absolutely clear that the creation of a large integrated academic research community in the life sciences has immensely benefited Scotland, and by coming together and investing in key research themes of cell biology, systems biology and translational biology, SELSA has ensured that it will build on and advance Scotland's global position in the life sciences field. With a backdrop like this, it is unsurprising that a study by Elsevier commissioned by Scottish Enterprise revealed that the life sciences sector is efficiently and effectively converting the world class peer reviewed research and patience. In addition, the research excellence within SELSA has helped Scotland to secure a central role in the European Commission's innovative medicines initiative programme, which aims to discover new drugs. At the Biocities site in Newhouse, for example, we are seeing the establishment of a state-of-the-art drug screening facility supported by global pharmaceutical companies. This facility will provide researchers from SELSA from industry and patient organisations across Europe an unprecedented opportunity to advance medical research and develop new medicines. SELSA has also helped to ensure that Scotland's record on university spin-outs is rather better than the rest of the United Kingdom. Such that in recent years, Scotland has been the only nation in the UK that has increased the number of life science spin-outs from our universities. Indeed, mobius life sciences have said in their report that this was linked to the increased public sector support for innovation in the life sciences in Scotland. However, collaboration does not stop at SELSA. The life sciences sector effectively collaborates with colleagues across the NHS, academic, banking, government and industry. Of course, another example of effective collaboration is Generation Scotland. Generation Scotland is a bio-resource of human biological samples available for medical research. It is a unique partnership unrivaled in Europe between our medical schools, our NHS and the people of Scotland. Over 30,000 people across Scotland have helped to create this world-class biomedical resource for research into a wide variety of diseases, including heart disease, diabetes, which David Stewart has already mentioned, and mental health problems. Whatever our pride in life sciences in Scotland, that does not mean that the sector does not have challenges ahead. One key challenge is developing and retaining a talent pool of international calibre in order to support the continued growth of the sector. It is worth noting that Skills Development Scotland in its report highlighted that the sector's main test in the future is retaining and training its future talent pool. The report sets out challenging but achievable objectives, such as raising awareness of career opportunities and refreshing research to ensure that employer demand is met. It sets out an ambitious action plan aimed at improving attractiveness to new entrants and attracting and anchoring key skills. However, I believe that it is important that we work with the sector to ensure that the action plan's goals are met so that by 2020 we will start to see the fruits of their labour. We need to ensure that Scotland will continue to be a world-leading research hub for the life sciences and to ensure, if possible, that the sector's economic contribution has doubled by 2020. The Skills Investment Plan will, I hope, help us in expanding that talent pool and position Scotland as the top destination for a career in the sector. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, we are incredibly fortunate that Scotland is a world-class centre for life sciences. We can and must do more to harness the potential in the sector. We need to enhance the representation and role of women, as Mark McDonald has already suggested, and we need to continue to work to create an environment that will help the life sciences sector to create significant growth in or out of the UK. I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this afternoon's debate to highlight the importance of the life sciences sector to the Scottish economy and the contribution that it is already making to improving health here and abroad. Scotland's track record in life sciences stretches back to when the discipline was first established with King's College in Aberdeen, the world's first medical school. Throughout the century, since we have enhanced our collective scientific understanding and pioneered many of the greatest advances from the use of anesthesia to the remarkable creation of Dolly the sheep. In my region, Dundee has emerged as an internationally renowned centre of excellence. According to the University of Dundee, life sciences account for 16 per cent of the Tayside economy. The university's own College of Life Sciences alone employs 900 staff from 60 countries. Attracting 100 million in research income each year, it has also helped to cultivate a cluster of local, biomedical and biotech businesses. Liberal Democrats in government worked hard to develop the life science industry. Indeed, it was the Liberal Democrat Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, who established the life sciences industry advisory group. Nearly a decade after its first strategy, focus, collaboration and the right resources on the right people are still central to achieving growth. Skills Development Scotland's report is dedicated to the last of those factors—attaining the right people. Attaining the right people is crucial for a research-intensive industry that relies on furthering knowledge, incubating intellectual ingenuity and nurturing technical expertise. That requires it to attract new entrants, retain talent and ensure that graduates have the skills that they need to make the transition into the workplace. Underpinning the interdisciplinary skills that the industry tells us that it needs are the STEM subjects. However, I have been long concerned, like others in the chamber, that the talent of many of the women who pursue those is lost. Approximately two thirds of those studying life sciences in further, higher and postgraduate education, are women. However, that uptake is not reflected in the gender balance in the workplace, where just 46 per cent of employees are female. At board level, fewer than one in five directors of life science companies in Scotland in 2010 were female. The report acknowledges that that is a lower share than any of the other government key sectors, and it reveals that a wealth of female talent is not retained or properly recognised. It is diverted elsewhere or it is overlooked. Reports such as Tapping All Our Talents, published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh a couple of years ago, documented how nearly three quarters of women with STEM qualification do not work in STEM industries. It concluded that that wasted talent is a serious loss across the whole economy. That is why more needs to be done to ensure that that talent is retained, valued and recognised in the life science sector. To reduce attrition at all levels of scientific employment, there needs to be a change in workplace policies and practices—indeed, whole workplace cultures—to make them fair places to work for everyone. I am pleased that a major life science company in my own region, GlaxoSmithKline, has signed the wise CEO charter, and by signing that charter, the CEO and the senior management commit to actively supporting the aim of increasing the participation at all levels of women in STEM, and developing clearly defined strategies and implementing practices to support the recruitment, retention and development of female talent. GSK have introduced gender-targeted coaching and sponsorship as part of their commitment to promote inclusion and diversity, and I would urge other companies to follow their lead. The RSE report suggested that a number of ways in which government, industry and education establishments could improve the situation, and the Minister for Learning and Science responded by saying, "...we know there's more we have to do, and I can reassure the RSE that the issue will continue to be a key priority for us. Why is it then that the skills investment plan only hints at responding to this problem through a staff supply mapping exercise? Why is retaining and promoting female talent and ensuring a diverse workforce not identified as a key challenge or priority? Regrettably, the action plan is also silent on the issue. I ask the minister to undertake to rectify that problem." The amendments table today are right to highlight the dividend that life sciences draw down from being part of the UK. The strength of our home-grown talent enables us to punch above our weight. We know that Parkinson's UK have told us that medical research charities currently spend a disproportionate amount of their total funding on research in Scotland—130 million or 13 per cent of the UK total, considerably more, as others have said, than a 8 per cent population share. Similarly, NUS Scotland tells us that our universities receive £257 million in grant funding—again, 13 per cent of the total. The best way to build upon our successes is through further collaboration, but the necessity to negotiate cross-border arrangements for research funding in the event of a yes vote puts us at risk. It would be a real challenge to maintain the same level of support for our research base if our relationships with research councils, Government departments and businesses elsewhere are eroded. Universities are clear that they wish to remain part of a pool, yet there is scant detail in the white paper as to how that would be achieved. There are no guarantees and there is no acknowledgement that separation risks our unrestricted access to substantial common research infrastructure. As part of the UK, our universities benefit from being part of a wider thriving research community. In a sector where collaboration is key, we have the best of both worlds—a strong Scottish Parliament supporting our world-class universities, backed by the strength of UK research resources. Scottish Liberal Democrats want to ensure that we continue to host one of the most extensive and advanced life science communities in Europe. In this sector, as in so many others, we are indeed better together. I think that it would be fair to say that having identified life sciences as one of the key sectors of the Scottish economy where there was and is potential for growth, we have actually seen that occur. Although most people associate the north-east with the oil and gas industry, Aberdeen also has a very vibrant life sciences sector. Maybe that is helped by the oil and gas industries playing a large part in promoting STEM subjects in schools and showing how science is important not just in the oil and gas industry but across other sectors, and teachers who have been involved with the many events that oil and gas companies put on themselves broadening out the opportunities that there are in other areas of STEM subjects, through the cross-disciplinary approach that the minister mentioned. Aberdeen is home to one of the life sciences incubation facilities. I have learned today that that is full, and I believe that Edinburgh by a quarter is almost full, too. The key thing to recognise here is that companies want to be close to both universities and hospitals for the cross-fertilisation of ideas. I am grateful to the member. She is on record in the past few days expanding on some of the ideas of cross-border negotiations on how, in the north of England, it would relate to the north of Scotland. Could the member explain why the subscription issue for university research funding would be better than the current way of funding through the UK research councils? I will come on to that. In previous debates on life sciences, my Aberdeen colleagues and I have praised the small innovative companies on the Crabston campus. Mark McDonald mentioned them again today. There is also the Rout Institute, which does a huge amount of research into food and drink and diet, not to mention the James Hutton Institute, which carries out research in the environmental field, both here and overseas, including Malawi. One of the most pleasing aspects of the companies on the Crabston campus was the number of women running them. They do very valuable work, as Mark McDonald said, and I will not repeat. Clearly, I think that, where women are able to be in charge of their companies and their own work, there can be long-term opportunities and retention of women in STEM positions. That is also an issue that we have debated many times in this chamber, and, again, Alison McInnes has just raised. Given the number of opportunities that there are in science and technology throughout Scotland, it is important that youngsters from an early age are made aware and are excited by the wonders of science. That is why parents and teachers should take every opportunity to visit the science centres such as the atmosphere in Aberdeen, Dynamic Earth and the other centres, as well as science events that run for weeks, such as TechFest in Aberdeen. I would like to point out that not everybody is going to be a science graduate or a post graduate or a research scientist, but higher education institutions and companies also require staff at technician level. I was pleased to read in the skills investment plan that Skills Development Scotland will work with the Life Sciences advisory board to increase awareness and uptake of the modern apprenticeship in life sciences across the sector. Throughout the debate, the Opposition members have continued their project fear approach about research funding. However, let us be clear. Public funding of university research in Scotland and across the United Kingdom is currently delivered by a dual support system, comprising a block grant given by the funding council of each country funded from devolved budgets, and competitively awarded grants from the UK-wide research councils funded through the tax pace, which remember folks that Scotland contributes and Scottish citizens contribute to through their taxes. Those grants, as others have said, are awarded on merit and, increasingly, they are awarded not to a single institution but collaborative research across UK and international institutions. With independence, Scotland will have the opportunity to internationally enhance the profile of our institutions and their expertise and encourage investment from pharmaceutical countries and charities alike. Neil Bibby mentioned charities and seemed to imply that they will not spend research money in Scotland. Mr Bibby, charities will invest where the best research is, regardless of location. They would be reckless to do otherwise, so stop that scaremongering aspect of the debate. Why do not you also recognise that UK immigration policy is a big threat to research? Because of immigration policy, the collaboration that is required cannot take place. In conclusion, I would like to quote Professor Tim O'Shea, who said, "...there is no reason why any form of constitutional change should preclude participation in higher-order research councils or our own Aberdeen professor of Aberdeen University, Sir Ian Diamond, who said, "...I can't see it as in the interests of anyone in the rest of the UK to want to exclude Scotland, nor is it in the interest of Scotland to be excluded from collaboration." I support the motion in the name of the minister. Could members please remember to address the remarks through the Presiding Officer, Jenny Marra, to be followed by Dennis Robertson. I rise to speak about life sciences simply because it is very important to the city of Dundee. I would like to start by addressing a couple of points in the debate, especially one more in what has just raised. As she accused my colleagues and I think some members of the Opposition parties of continuing project fear throughout this debate, I think it is rather ironic that she said it, because in all of the SNP speeches, they have not been prepared to take one intervention on the subject of taxes. She said that awards will be made on merit. I would remind her and the SNP quite gently that awards cannot be made on merit if you are not contributing to that tax base. People will not award us. Alasdair Allan looks at me with incredulity as if I am talking nonsense, but it is what the vast majority—if he can intervene on me, I am happy to answer his point. Forgive me if I looked incredulous, but the reason I made the expressions on my face is that, as numerous members on all sides have acknowledged, a common research area implies a subscription model. It does not imply getting something for free. Jenny Marra, we will come on to that in a minute, but I would suggest that, if you are not paying taxes into the pot that you are then looking to take funding from, it becomes very difficult. That position is shared by many, many researchers across the length and breadth of Scotland. I will first start to talk a little bit about Dundee. In recent months, scientists in my home city have delivered a candidate drug for malaria. They have set up a centre of excellence for tuberculosis drug discovery with the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. They have identified new ways to tackle Parkinson's disease. They have been recognised for their groundbreaking research in genetic skin diseases and inflammation. They have been undertaking a wide variety of community engagement in schools, which is very important to engage school children in science. Furthermore, over the next few months, they will open a £26 million laboratory complex, leveraging £7 million of public sector investment that will lead to 180 new externally funded and high-value jobs for Scotland's life sciences sector. I would like to turn to a little bit about skills that are in the investment strategy. I think that it is very concerning that this report says that students participating in life sciences-related courses in further education have fallen every year since 0809. Given the skills requirements for this important sector, I would like to ask the minister if he will write to each college principal in Scotland to ask them the specific reasons why there has been a year-on-year decline in participation in life sciences courses. I am sure that he will agree with me that this is something that needs to be urgently addressed, given the skills requirements that are outlined in this report today. I wonder if he will undertake to do that in his closing remarks. I am pleased to note in this report that participation of women in life sciences courses is healthy, as is the ratio of male to female employees within the sector. However, we again see in more promoted positions that in 2010, just four years ago, only 18.7 per cent of directors of Scottish life sciences businesses were female. The report points out that this accounted for a lower share than any of the Government-key sectors. I know that this was a point that Alison McKinnon said that she was concerned about, too. I wonder whether, with Angela Constance's new remit for female employment, the minister will undertake to do a bit of investigation with his colleague on that. If I can turn to a big theme of this afternoon's debate, which has been funding and the impact of the referendum on that funding, I was in Dundee University on Tuesday evening training in the gym and was approached by a researcher who I trained with. He was asking me how the referendum campaign was going, and he said, please make sure that it is a no vote, because our funding is under threat with this prospect. I see Mark McDonald's disagreeing with me. Those were not my words, those were the words of a researcher who I did not know who approached me in the university. One of the points that was made this afternoon was that scientific awards would be made on merit. I have checked with the Wellcome Trust. The Wellcome Trust is one of the biggest funders of the life sciences sector in Dundee, and the latest figures that they have for investigators awards on their website said that they made 37 different awards at UK institutions last year. They made two awards to overseas institutions. I think that the SNP would be very well advised to get in touch with some of the key funders, the Wellcome Trust and all of those funders, who are so important for my city and for our local economy in Scotland, to see actually what criteria they are using to allocate their funding. From the figures from their website, it is clear to me that the preference is for this money to stay in the United Kingdom. I would be very interested to know if the minister has any evidence otherwise. I understand also that the white paper proposal is for a Scandinavian-style funding pot. I would gently remind the minister that the Scandinavian research funding pot is worth less in total than one single research grant that is currently undertaken at Dundee University. The Scandinavian research pot is less than £14 million. There is a larger single grant currently being used at Dundee University. I would ask the minister to think long and hard about those points. I am grateful to my friends and colleagues, Maureen Watt and Mark McDonald, for mentioning Aberdeen and the many areas of life sciences in Aberdeen. I had to rethink, perhaps, a couple of my opening remarks. However, Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire is a wealth of life sciences, and we have fantastic universities. As Mark McDonald and Maureen Watt had said, we have got that out at the Institute, and we have the James Hutton Institute as well. Reminding me of a debate that we had not so long ago on life sciences, is that, when I think that Liz Smith mentioned, how do we engage younger people into the science area? How do we not just engage but retain their interest? That actually does remind me of the time that my colleagues and myself visited a centre in Aberdeen, organised by Scottish Enterprise. We went to NCIB and, basically, they were handing out badges, et cetera, and I love bugs. I remember Kevin Stewart saying when he came to the chamber to talk on that debate about how he loved bugs and life sciences after that particular visit. I started to think that maybe that is how we do engage our younger people. Maybe it is about engaging them at a very young age and getting them to understand the elements of science and fun, as Mark McDonald also said in his opening remarks. I was at a school recently in Doneth, where the primary school was looking at bringing forward a market garden and taking their produce into the kitchen. It reminded me of a book that the Rout Institute launched, as well, called Stovies Reloaded. The book is about something close to my waistline, in the fact that it looks at things such as scotch pies and forfabridis, et cetera, but it is a healthier option. I am much healthier option using leaner meats and maybe not using salt, instead of using suet or things such as vegetable spread. That is a sort of thing that we need to try to introduce and ensure that our younger children are aware of. It is not just about what happens at the institute and within the science centre. It is about what actually happens there, taking it both to your home, to your kitchen and into your actual school and school dinners. It would be a thing that what the schools were doing in my constituency, and I know in Huntley, the Gordon school, they have the Wednesday in the woods. That is fantastic, because it is all about that learning. Neil Bibby mentioned about the numeracy. They learn all about the numeracy and they learn about writing and the science when they are out in the woods. It is all real to them. It is about how we retain that and how we try to ensure that that interest at that early years is taken forward. It also reminded me of one of the schools that was through the James Hutton Institute. It was about eco-pets. I never heard of eco-pets. It was a wormery. It was about James Hutton looking at how earthworms were within the wormery, but it was about what happens to the soil. The children were looking at the soil investigating the soil and the aspects of the soil, the elements within the soil, and what was there that would help to grow fresh vegetables. It is about how we are rich in our wealth within our children. That is our resource for the future. We have heard a lot this afternoon about future funding and the debates around the UK—or funny might dry up if we leave the UK. It is nonsense, because our richness, our resources are within our young children of the future. Through their merit and the merit of our university's institutes in Scotland at the moment, that will bring continued funding into our research in Scotland. I think that we have a difficult task ahead of us, and that is about how we engage our young people and how we retain their interests. However, I would say to our schools that the curriculum for excellence is a pathway to trying to engage that area. When we take the lab and the lorry around our schools, that is so exciting for young people to have a hands-on experience of science at its basic level, because it is about hearing what is going on, about seeing what is going on, about feeling what is going on, and about getting the opportunities to do that within a scientific laboratory. I think that, in conclusion, we have a bright future with our life sciences and for our young people. I commend the motion to Parliament. I now turn to the closing speeches, and I call on Mary Scanlon. I think that there has been a good debate on the skills investment plan for the life sciences sector and, indeed, the latest plan following ICT in digital, finance, tourism, food and drink and energy. Although I appreciate that life sciences is not all about health, I was drawn to a particular quote that I found in the plan, which sums up the exciting sector that we are talking about today. It was the estimate that only 30 to 70 per cent of patients respond positively to any particular drug. I was quite shocked at that figure and, looking forward, research on the right treatment to the right patient at the right time is to be hugely welcomed. I think that, to me, just summed it all up. I thought, if that is where we are going with this sector, that is just so immensely exciting, but I think that we should also remember that life sciences is not all about health, as others have said. Although the life sciences sector is well established in many parts of Scotland, I really want to mention LifeScan again, which the minister mentioned and David Stewart. I think that LifeScan is a model not only for employment, the way that it links to schools, its work with schools, its work experience and, indeed, the point that David Stewart made about the linking in the chair at UHI. I remember when LifeScan came to Inverness, it was called Inverness Medical. It was a sub-part of Johnson & Johnson. We were promised 300 jobs eventually, and it was 40, then it was 60, then it was 80. There was a lot of scepticism about this. LifeSciences is coming to Inverness, really. Now, as David Stewart has said and the minister acknowledged, for about the last 15 to 17 years, LifeScan has regular employed and still does well over 1,000 people. As David Stewart also said, he is a major private sector employer. I also noticed from the plan that many of the LifeSciences companies employ one person, two people, and I think that we shouldn't just say that it's not worth having because it's small. This is such an exciting sector that we should welcome everyone who comes along with a good idea. I have to say that, apart from the schools and the UHI, LifeScan is also famous for their football sponsorship, and I won't mention the team. It is important for us to ensure that skills and training are matched with employer demand, so that local people have the opportunity to gain sustainable employment and build a career. In the Highlands, we want graduates and others to stay in the Highlands, not just stay in Scotland, but we want the opportunities there. The recent Audit Scotland report on modern apprenticeships stated that performance measures did not focus on long-term outcomes such as sustainable employment, but that there were fewer apprenticeships in the Scottish Government's key economic sector. They went on to stress the need to align modern apprenticeships more closely with growth areas. We have heard today just how important life sciences are to economic growth, jobs and investment in Scotland. Last year, out of 25,000 modern apprenticeships, 21 were in life sciences, 21 out of 25,000. That, to me, is not aligning modern apprenticeships with this exciting area for economic growth. It is a shocking figure, given that it has been identified by the Government as a key sector with high growth potential and capacity to boost productivity. I note in the recommendations that modern apprenticeships should be reviewed, and I trust that the minister will acknowledge that in his summing up. While I welcome the 25 increase in undergraduates in higher education since 2007, as Jenny Marr and Malcolm Chisholm said, in further education, the number of students participating in life sciences has fallen by 27 per cent in the same period. In fact, as the plan that we are debating today states, student numbers in every life sciences are now at pre-recession levels. It does not sound like the big priority growth sector that it really ought to be. I also welcome the fact in the plan. I do not think that anyone has mentioned it, but I think that it is an important issue. The identification of the issue is to develop soft skills. Given that employers have commented that new graduates need to build their soft skills, including commercial awareness, teamwork, attitudes to deadlines, work ethic and communication skills. Those skills are not just essential for life sciences, but in all sectors, and they highlight the benefits from work experience prior to entering the workplace. Alison MacKinnon and others have mentioned the fact that out of 56,000 female STEM graduates, 15,000 continued to work in the sector. I will not go on to repeat any more, but I do think that that is a significant issue. Finally, I think that we also need to look at the attainment gap. The figure of 2.9 per cent of children, 266 from Scotland's most deprived areas, earning three high rates compared to 20 per cent of the most affluent, is very concerning. This is a sector with high wage, high salary and wonderful opportunities, and it should be available to people from all backgrounds, including the most deprived and poorer backgrounds. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As several members have said, Scotland and the UK science have long had a good reputation. Edinburgh University, for example, has had an internationally acclaimed reputation for medicine for many decades. I do not think that the politicians should try to take too much credit for the success of life sciences. I do not think that anybody today has tried to do that. Governments can make a difference in facilitating the links between academic institutions and business and encouraging commercialisation, but it is down to the scientists and the researchers to produce the work. Both Neil Baillby and Roddie Campbell and others acknowledged that the current success of the policies of successive Scottish Governments way back in August 2001, when Alexander, the Minister for Enterprise, launched Scotland's first ever science strategy. Amongst the same are the promotion of Scotland as an international centre for scientific expertise and the creation of a pipeline of support to enable the creation of global companies from the scientific output of Scottish laboratories. It also created the Scottish Science Advisory Committee at that time under the umbrella of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and, important, I feel that I used specialist fellowships and the proof of concept funding to link up science policy with investment decisions. I think that life sciences success is a success of the scientists and researchers, first of all, who are in it, but, secondly, it is one of devolution's many successes. Scottish science does do well under devolution. Many members have referred to the fact that we are awarded 13 per cent of research and development grants, and that publications and citations per capita in Scottish universities and institutes are among the highest in the world. 15 per cent of the UK's life sciences companies are based in Scotland. I agree that Scottish institutions get more than their population share from the UK research councils because of the quality of their research. Liz Smith has asked us a number of people in the SNP benches about the subscription model, and nobody seems to be terribly keen to answer her question on that. That is project reality, not project fear. How does the subscription model work? How much is the subscription? If the subscription is due to your population share, the chances are that the institutions in the rest of the UK will not be too keen on taxpayer's money being paid out on top of that to Scottish universities. If it is historic and the Scottish Government is charged for what the Scottish universities get, then basically the Scottish Government is being financially penalised for the success of Scottish research. It might as well, as Neil Bibby said, have its own separate research council. Several members were keen to talk about the successes in their particular areas. Malcolm Chisholm spoke about the Edinburgh bio-quarter, and he pointed out to us that it was set up 50-50 from funds from the Scottish Enterprise and the UK Strategic Investment Fund, a good investment of money. Given that there are already 900 hospital beds on the canvas, 1,200 researchers are expected to rise to 1,500 beds and 2,000 researchers within the next couple of years. Its specialist facilities have made it a leading European Centre for Translational Medical Research. Jenny Marra and Alice McKinnis spoke about the College of Life Sciences in Dundee, which I know has just received £8 million funding from the Scottish Government towards the development of a phenotypic drug screening laboratory. It too has an international reputation as a productive research institute, and it has the highest number of citations per paper for biological sciences in the whole of Europe. As Alice McKinnis said, life sciences now accounts for 16 per cent of the Tayside economy, which is a great achievement. David Stewart and Mary Scanlan have spoken about the important developments in the Highlands with the development of the Centre for Health Science at Rhaigmore hospital in Inverness and the Injacent Inverness campus of the University of the Highlands and Islands, which, as they said, is home to Johnson and Johnson's Life Scan Scotland, which two years ago announced a decision to locate their global diabetes research centre in Inverness. I know of David Stewart's long-standing interest in testing and treatment of diabetes, and I am sure that he must be particularly gratified by the fact that that is actually going on in his doorstep. Linda Fabiani spoke about research in East Kilbride, Mark McDonald and Maureen Watt, Deris Obbison, and stressed the important institutes, the Rout Institute and the James Hudson Institute up in Aberdeen. It is quite clear that there is good scientific research going on right throughout Scotland. As Mark McDonald and Mary Scanlan said, while we congratulate the sector for its remarkable success and expansion, we should not forget that we do not retain enough of our female scientists. At the Royal Society of Edinburgh report, tapping on talent talents was produced by working group chaired by a very eminent astrophysicist, Jocelyn Bell-Bernel. It quotes the statistics that 73 per cent of women trained in STEM subjects leave their profession as compared to 48 per cent of men. If we could think about what even greater success Scottish Science might have if we got the female participation up to the level of male participation in the longer term. It is still the case that concerns such as childcare, attitudes towards people taking maternity leave, the difficulty in taking maternity leave when a researcher is on a fixed-term contract and problems with work-life balance for women with caring responsibilities are still driving women out of science. I personally find that very depressing because the factors that drove women out of science at the time I left and things do not seem to be getting that much better for women since. The Labour motion also mentions the possible takeover of AstraZeneca by Pfizer, and that does not seem to be reflected in the debate. That is unfortunate, because although the headquartered elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the possibility should not be of concern to us, because AstraZeneca are major supplies to the NHS. It worked with health boards in Scotland, for example, Grampian, as Neil Bibby said, and I do hope that the Scottish Government will support Edmundleban's call for a public interest test in corporate deals such as his potential takeover. In conclusion, it is good to celebrate the success of life sciences, but many members have mentioned issues of concern that we need to address. Neil Bibby spoke of the levels of numeracy in schools. If you do not have a numeracy skills, you are not going to be able to do science. Malcolm Tism and Jenny Marra talked about student numbers in further education and life sciences decreasing. The Smith talked about the take-up of science subjects in schools and the Scottish Baccalaureate. Mary Scanlon mentioned the numbers of modern apprenticeships in life sciences, and I think that there is a general concern about the curriculum for excellence as it comes in. Is it going to be sufficiently rigorous to prepare students to study sciences at university, because science is a rigorous discipline and they need to acquire those sorts of learning skills at school to be able to go on to succeed at university? Do not even get me started on access to laboratories. I agree with what Dennis Roberts said in terms of the lab and laboratory, but to do science, science is an experimental vocational subject, and young children and young people need the opportunities to get out there and do experiments and learn from doing experiments, and unfortunately not enough of that goes on in our schools nowadays. Thank you. We now move to Arthur Alton to wind up the debate. Minister, five o'clock. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has, I believe, been a very positive debate in the main and has focused on life sciences as one of the many reasons that we can be proud of Scotland's academic and economic achievements. Life sciences are clearly something in which Scotland excels. Many speakers have referred to that, and our contribution to global research in this area is not only appropriate for us to celebrate but also appropriate for us to think about what we can do to exceed that in the future. There were many very considered and thoughtful contributions in the debate, although there was not a contribution in this particular science debate from Stuart Stevenson. I had been looking forward to that following his Van de Graaff generator speech, which has entered into parliamentary folklore since the last science debate took place. Mr Bibby made important points about numeracy in schools. I would say that there have been a number of measures of numeracy in schools, and we are far from complacent. The PISA statistics did indicate that good things are happening on that front. I entirely appreciate the point that is made about the need for rigor and constant improvement in that area. Where I take exception was where he more than once referred or used the phrase failing education system, and I take the greatest possible exception to that phrase being used in the context of Scotland's schools. Ms Smith mentioned a number of areas around stem subjects in schools, and the work that we all acknowledge needs to be done to promote the science baccalaureate in schools. The Scottish baccalaureate was presented as an added value, because it had that crucial mix of higher and advanced higher, and it is not being taken up. Could the minister suggest reasons as to why it is not being taken up, and what the Scottish Government is going to do to address that, because it really is a key issue? Obviously, in the context of the new qualifications, the baccalaureate is one of many options for adding value to your qualifications. However, as I have indicated, that is something that we constantly encourage, not only the baccalaureate for science but also the baccalaureate for languages. Ms MacDonald mentioned many examples of international co-operation in the field of research, to which I could add the fact that the UK is in co-operation directly with countries including Switzerland, Luxembourg and the USA. I also want to mention Mr Chisholm for a very thoughtful contribution about the research partnership that exists between the research community and Scotland's NHS. It is also worth saying that, in his own city, Edinburgh College is also doing great work around the promotion of STEM subjects with a STEM academy promoting links with schools too. I will have to make some progress, but I will come to you in a moment yet. Aileen McLeod spoke about key science sectors and, particularly something that was raised by other speakers as well, an emerging science, which is personalised medicine, which holds out some truly amazing opportunities for understanding and practicing medicine in the future. I give way. I give way. Was he as shocked as I was about the 21 modern apprenticeships in life sciences out of 25,000? Can he tell me how he plans to address that, given that life sciences is one of the Government's key sectors? I would argue for the importance of modern apprenticeships, which are far from the only means of engaging young people in science and science careers, but we constantly advocate for the development of young people's skills. At the other end of the equation, we are also working to improve people's lab skills, which was referred to earlier on, and people's employability as scientists too. There were a number of speakers, and I will try to get through some of them in the time available, but David Stewart rightly referred to some of Scotland's scientific achievements in the past, including Fleming, which I take to be an endorsement of my personal practice of not cleaning my kitchen sink. A number of speakers mentioned, including David Stewart, the importance of the science sector to the highlands and islands, and the new campus in Inverness is relevant in that respect. Linda Fabiani reminded us of the importance of the application of life sciences, not least in East Kilbride, and she was right to say that we need to be ambitious in that respect. Rodd Campbell made an important point about the fact that the future structure of research in Scotland will, to a very large degree, be in the hands of academics themselves and pointed to the success of academic-driven initiatives such as research pools and Salsa. Alison McInnes rightly mentioned the importance to Dundee of the life science sector. She mentioned that it relied on 60 nationalities and 60 countries, although that was immediately followed by an argument that the whole thing relied on one country. A number of speakers, including Alison McInnes, Mark McDonald and Elaine Murray, made an important argument about ensuring that we have every encouragement and opportunity given to women in science in Scotland. I entirely accept the argument that we have to do much, much more in that respect, although, in the life sciences, it should be said that we have something nearer the quality in that respect than in other areas of science. I must make some progress now in order to come to the conclusion of this debate. I think that one thing that is worth saying is that a number of speakers mentioned that, of course, research and science are not just about traditional categories of scientists. I must make some progress, but I am about to close. I must make some progress. It is also about, for instance, the importance of technicians. I just want to conclude by saying something about the amendments. I think that the reason that I am happy to accept both amendments is because, despite some of the arguments that were built upon the inoffensive text of the amendments, the amendments themselves are positive. I believe, for instance, that on Liz Smith's amendment again, I believe that it is entirely reasonable to point to the successes of the research sector. Mr Bibby's amendment notes the important contribution of UK research councils, which I am happy again to acknowledge, despite the fact that we take different views about what the future should be. He rightly mentions the issue about the proposed takeover around Pfizer and the fact that it is worth mentioning in that context. Although neither company has a major base in Scotland, it is obviously a matter of interest. The NHS in Scotland, to pick up on a point that was made around that, has indicated that it has no concerns about its future relationship with either company, but it is entirely legitimate for the matter of debate today for us to question whether the UK Government intends to make any further inquiries about that. In that spirit, despite the fact that the debate has occasionally wandered into articles of faith and, as a result, the debate has changed its character, that was predictable. Rather, I want to end where I began and say that this sector, the life sciences sector, as well as providing employment for 35,000 people in Scotland and 650 companies and constituting, as it does, one of the great successes of Scottish science, is, at its heart, something of which everyone in this Parliament across all partisan boundaries should be particularly proud, and it is particularly useful that we have chosen today to debate it. That concludes the debate on life sciences. We now move to the next side of business, which is consideration of parliamentary bureau motion number 9566 on committee memberships. I would ask, if it is Patrick, to move motion number 9566 on committee memberships. On this motion, we will put a decision to the time to which we have come. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 9963.2, in the name of Neil Bibby, which seeks to amend motion number 9963.2, in the name of Alasdair Allan, on life sciences, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is there for agreed to. The next question is amendment number 9963.1, in the name of Liz Smith, which seeks to amend motion number 9963, in the name of Alasdair Allan, on life sciences, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is there for agreed to. The next question is motion number 9963, in the name of Alasdair Allan, as amended, twice. On life sciences, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. The next question is motion number 9566, in the name of Jofits Particle. Committee memberships, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. That concludes decision time, and I now close this meeting.