I'll be more than happy to write to the member detailing them so that he is fully aware of their detail. Many thanks, and that concludes portfolio questions, and we'll now move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12395 in the name of Murdo Fraser on an energy strategy for Scotland. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now or, as soon as possible, and I now call on Murdo Fraser to speak to and move the motion. Ten minutes, please, Mr Fraser. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last week, we had yet more unwelcome news about the future of the Longannate power station in Fife. Someone who represents the area, I'm well aware of the significance of the plant to the local economy, and it was only a few months ago that I made my most recent visit there. In all the press speculation about the plant's future, one of our primary concerns should be for the workforce who are undoubtedly facing a worrying time. The issue that was highlighted last week in relation to the future of Longannate was that of transmission charging, although there is nothing new about this. Last week, I spoke to both Scottish Power and National Grid on this issue, and I sincerely hope that the resolution can be found. Most GEMs have recently approved a significant change to substantially reduce future generation charges in Scotland, particularly for a plant like Longannate, which generally tends to run when the wind is not blowing. Those are planned to be introduced from April next year, but we should be going further. While the transmission charging issue is a serious one, we should not pretend that it is by any means the only threat to Longannate's future. New EU emissions rules and the introduction of carbon pricing mean that the future of Longannate after 2020 is, at best, very uncertain. Resolving the transmission charging issue is likely to by, at best, a stay of execution. That is a serious matter, and not just for those whose jobs are dependent upon the power station. For Longannate today provides some 20 per cent of Scotland's electricity output. It has been as high as 25 per cent in the recent past. It is also, of course, a major buyer of coal from Scottish opencast producers, and therefore its possible closure has a wider impact in terms of the Scottish economy. What makes the current situation even more worrying is that Longannate is not the only power station facing closure. Scotland's three biggest generating stations today are Longannate, Tornes and Hunterston. The last two are, of course, nuclear powered, and both of them scheduled to close by 2025. Between the three, they currently produce 55 per cent of Scotland's electricity. We know that the Scottish Government has something of an obsession with renewable energy. The Scottish Conservatives believe that renewable energy has a part to play as a component in the energy mix, but we do not share the Scottish Government's single-minded obsession with renewable energy, particularly wind power, to the exclusion of all other technologies. The simple fact is that intermittent energy sources cannot provide the base load that is necessary to provide electricity to Scotland's homes and businesses at all times to meet every demand whether or not the wind is blowing. Minister Fergus Ewing. Does Murdo Fraser recognise that I have made it clear for the last four years and I have made it clear specifically in our electricity generation policy statement of 213 that we recognise that we will continue to need a minimum of 2.5 gigawatts of conventional thermo-delivered electricity? That has been our position for as long as I have been the minister despite constant misrepresentation. Murdo Fraser? If that is the minister's position, he is not convincing anyone involved in the industry. Just last week, Professor Paul Younger, the Professor of Energy Engineering at Glasgow University, a man we might expect to know a little bit about this subject, said, and I quote, We are already getting to where it is getting too late to design, build and commission new power stations, especially when you have got the Scottish Government making common cause with the anti-everything brigade. Those are the views of Professor Younger. You would think as the Professor of Energy Engineering, the Scottish Government might be listening to his view. What we have is the Scottish Government putting all its eggs in the basket of intermittent wind power. It has slammed the door shut on fracking and the potential for unconventional gas. It refuses to consent to any new nuclear plants. Within a decade, we are going to lose 55 per cent of our electricity-generating capacity, and there is simply no strategy from the SNP Government as to how we are going to keep the lights on after 2025. Professor Younger again got it right last week when he said this. It does not help when last week we have the Scottish Government cheerleading against fossil fuels and then this week saying, Let's go hang on a minute, we desperately need them. Well, let's get consistent guides. The minister may think that he's got a consistent position, but it's certainly not reflected in the statements from some of his colleagues. I think that we need a clear statement from the Scottish Government on what exactly is their energy strategy for the next decade. To be fair to the minister, he can on occasion approach these issues with a degree of good sense. Unfortunately, his amendment today resorts to the tired old tactic of blaming everything on Westminster. The Government amendment doesn't give the full picture. Even in relation to Longannet, it doesn't mention the issues of EU emissions targets or of carbon pricing, both of which the SNP are fully signed up to in government. Even in relation to the transmission charging issue, it misses the point. The transmission charging regime affects all generating plants in Scotland and has been in existence for many years. Exactly the same transmission regime, which applies to Longannet, applies to Scottish powers other generating asset, the White Leaves wind farm, sitting on more or less precisely the same latitude as Longannet, but does not threaten that project's viability. Indeed, on a daily basis, we see applications flooding in for wind farms all over Scotland subject to exactly the same transmission charging regime as affects conventional stations. So clearly transmission charging is a barrier and one that we need to try to overcome, but it's not an insurmountable one if you've got the right kind of project with the right technology. The SNP amendment leaves us with another question. What exactly is the SNP policy for electricity generation? Is it to rely wholly on renewables? The minister is fond of saying that an energy variety is everything, but there are no concrete proposals brought forward to replace either our existing nuclear capacity or conventional generation. And while the SNP may not like nuclear power, the fact is that this is a low-carbon green energy which we are going to need if we want to meet our climate change targets and keep the light on at the same time. Yes, Mr Brody. I have here a letter which you've had me say before as a dear chick from Nick, a letter which talks about the coalition's objectives on new nuclear stations that they can go ahead so long as it is without subsidy. How do you explain the £35 million plus that is about to be spent on Hinkley Point largely through subsidy from the Government? The reality is that all sources of energy require some level of subsidy. That's the regime that we have under contracts for difference. However, Mr Brody needs to bear in mind that new nuclear power is cheaper than every form of renewable technology, including onshore wind, and the SNP benches should bear that in mind. No, I need to make some progress, Mr Harvey. The minister mentions in his amendment the need for increased investment in large-scale, flexible electricity storage solutions, including pumped storage. He's right to say that if we are relying on intermittent sources of energy, we need more storage. But how much does the Government know? I've seen an assessment this week that says that we would need 20 large-scale pumped storage schemes. Does the minister agree with that? If it's not 20, how many is it? Where would these be built? What would the cost be? They would cost billions of capital expenditure to create. What would the impact on electricity bills be from those projects? Does the minister have any answer to those questions or is he simply making it up as he goes along? We will hear from him shortly. Let me turn briefly to the other amendments. Lewis MacDonald's amendment, although the tone of it is much of the tone of it that I agreed with, unfortunately deletes reference to the closure of both Hunterston and Tornes, which makes it difficult for us to support. I see that Labour's famous resilience fund is getting yet another run-out, and I wonder how many times over that particular pocket of money has been spent. The kindest thing I can say about Patrick Harvey's amendment is that after yesterday's campaign launch, it is good to know that at least one person in the Green Party can finish a sentence. As to the substance, it is the stuff of fantasy. I don't know anyone with a professional involvement in power generation who believes that we can rely wholly on renewables for our energy supply. Even the industry trade body, Scottish renewables, don't make that claim. Presiding Officer, over the past decade, we have heard a lot from the SNP and from the former First Minister about how Scotland is to be the Saudi Arabia of renewables, how we are an oil-rich, energy-rich nation. What an irony it would be therefore if the only way we could keep the lights on in Scotland would be to import power from England. And yet that is exactly where we are heading. And don't take my word for it, because that is what Professor Younger said last week, and I quote, we will be reliant on importing power from England for about 25 per cent of Scottish demand. We need at least one new gas-powered generating station for Scotland. And if we are not going to replace Tornet and Hunterston with new nuclear capacity, probably more than one. I would like to make a bid today for a new gas station to be located at Longannet in Fife. The infrastructure is there, the skills are there and the workforce is there. If Longannet, the existing station, is having to close and sadly that loop is inevitable, whatever happens to transmission charging, then let's see a replacement in that corner of Fife. But that needs to be part of a broader energy strategy and that is what is currently lacking. Let me close by quoting again from Professor Younger. Talking of the Scottish Government's approach, he said, we need to be consistent here and have a bit of leadership. I agree entirely with that. We need an updated energy strategy for Scotland and we need that urgently before the lights go out. I have pleasure in moving the motion in my name. Many thanks. Now Colin Berger is hearing to speak to your move on amendment 12395.1. Minister, up to seven minutes please, tight for time today. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to debate this important matter. I genuinely do and I thank Murdo Fraser and his party for raising this chamber. There are a few things of more immediate importance than the future of Longannet because that future is under imminent threat. Like Mr Fraser, I visited Longannet on more than one occasion and I did so most recently on Monday. The station was built for 25 years for an intended life of 150,000 running hours. It has delivered electricity for this country for 42 years, over 215,000 hours. I was informed by the manager of Longannet that last year was its best operational year ever. I think that says a lot for the professionalism of those who have worked there over four decades, many of whom have served for most of that period and also for the company that has invested, I believe, of the order of £200 million towards meeting the challenges such as the emissions of sulphur dioxide and other gases in order to address the environmental concerns quite rightly. To find some consensus to start off in this debate, I feel that there is a broad consensus that, in Scotland, Longannet has served as well, that we continue to need it now, that it faces a challenging future beyond 2020, but that, broadly speaking, setting political disagreements aside, we all want to see a solution that will allow Longannet to continue to operate for several years to come. Now, Presiding Officer, I think that the record will show that I have been pretty consistent in arguing, as energy minister, that in order to meet our needs of security of supply, of reasonable cost, of reliability, that we all want to see a balance to our electricity mix. I have argued that time and time again, but I have not just argued it here in this chamber in speeches. I have ensured that it has been set out in a policy document in 2013, namely the electricity generation policy statement. That was a document prepared by technical experts, and I am not one of those. Neither, I suspect, are many other members in this chamber, but it was prepared on expert advice, and that is our policy statement now. The fact that various people who write for tabloid newspapers or who other operate in communicating what they purport to be news to the outside world does not detract from the fact that, a, we have been entirely consistent in calling for a balanced means of supply of our electricity system, and, b, we have set it out furthermore clearly in writing and in great technical detail. I am happy to take it in. In denigrating all those who disagree with his stance, does the minister include in those Professor Paul Younger, Professor of Energy Engineering at Glasgow University? Why does he not buy into the minister's vision that he has just set out? There are three questions there. I am not going to be drawn into making comments in particular individuals, but if Mr Fraser is going to say that if Mr Fraser can demonstrate to me and provide me with anything that I have said that is contradicted what I have just said now, I will be very interested to hear it because it does not exist. Let me make some progress because I only have seven minutes and I want to get to the meat of the issue here. First of all, I have to point out gently to model Fraser that there are a couple of difficulties with the motion, which is sadly factually wrong. The motion that she has put down for Parliament says, and I quote, that urges Scottish Power and National Grid to work toward a resolution of the transmission charging issue. Presiding Officer, Scottish Power and National Grid are not working towards a resolution of the transmission charging issue. The new grid contract, which Scottish Power seeks, as a resolution, is not a resolution of the transmission charging problem. It is simply a very limited stop-gap measure under the supplementary balancing reserve in order to enable Hoganet to continue to operate, but it only partially addresses the symptoms of a much deeper problem, i.e. the discriminatory grid charges. Let me just introduce these facts. The grid charges for Peterhead £22.97 per kilowatt, longanet £18.00, Hunterston £16.00, Tarnes £14.00, Egbara in Yorkshire £7.61, Didcot in Yorkshire £83.00, Taylor's Lane London £3.78. I read that out because that, Presiding Officer, is the evidence. What does that mean? It means that the extra costs, in addition to the legal obligations that I accept to exist in respect of industrial emissions and carbon duties, affect all stations, but you see that the problem is for Hoganet. They have to pay £40 million extra on top of that. I haven't got time. Sorry, Mr Harvey. Maybe I'm closing. To develop the argument, the central conundrum for the Scottish Conservatives, Presiding Officer, is this. We agree that we need more conventional thermal generation in Scotland. Indeed, I consented a 1 gigawatt of new gas generation for Kikensi. We agree that. I've made that clear ad infinitum, but the trouble is no one is going to build it because it makes no economic sense. No one is going to build new conventional stations. The great irony here today, Presiding Officer, is that the Tories are calling for something that is economically impossible because no one is going to do it. Unless the transmission charging discrimination is addressed in the long term, then that is a problem that is crystal clear and that the Scottish Conservatives, with sadly a motion that is flawed, have not brought forward any solution whatsoever. Many thanks. I now call on Lewis MacDonald to speak to and move amendment 12395.3. Mr MacDonald, do you have up to five minutes? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Indeed, Lunganat power station is under threat of closure and that is indeed a matter of regret, but it should come as no surprise to anyone, and least of all to ministers in the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government's report on proposals and policies which is supposed to show how ministers intend to meet binding carbon emission targets agreed by Parliament makes the assumption that Lunganat will be closed by 2020. It is acknowledged to be a seriously polluting plant by European standards. European Union requirements and carbon emissions mean that it cannot survive in its current form without very substantial additional investment. That investment has not yet been forthcoming. Scottish power has not invested to date and the company's decision not to bid into the capacity market auction from 2018-19 gives a pretty clear indication of its intentions. The best recent hope for Lunganat in the medium term was a scheme to enable investment in carbon capture and storage. That scheme did not reach fruition, in part because Scottish power deemed the billion pounds of public money on offer, potentially on offer, not to be enough. Once that decision was taken, the die was cast and the chances of Lunganat surviving into the 2020s in its current form effectively came to an end. The Scottish Government's responsibility in this situation is to be open and honest with the communities of West Fife about the power station's future prospects. Yet today's SNP amendment fails to address the prospect of closure, be it in 2018, in 2020 or beyond. Instead, Mr Ewing asserts, that cleaner thermal generation, progressively fitted with carbon capture and storage technology, will continue to play an important role. As if such cleaner thermal generation already played a part. Of course, it does not, and it may not for some time. Although the technology certainly exists, it does not yet operate at scale and has some proving to do before it can do so. Of course. Thank you to Lewis MacDonald for giving way to it. Does he accept that, in fact, of course, we are seeing CCS schemes agreed to go ahead, that Peter Head in respect of gas CCS and in respect of coal and white rose south of the border, something that I thought we all welcomed? Indeed, I'm sure we all do welcome, and I heard a good deal about the Peter Head gas CCS project last night at the Shell Springboard events here in Edinburgh, and it's a very exciting prospect I wish it well. I hope that it can prove the commercial feasibility of gas carbon capture, and I hope that white rose can do the same for coal. Those projects are both at a very early stage in proving their effectiveness, and therefore it would be a mistake to make assumptions about either of them. And neither of those projects bears directly on the position at Longannet. The Government amendment also refers to its electricity generation policy statement, which indeed the minister was quoted when he was interviewed about the position at Longannet on Radio Scotland last week, and he quoted again today. That statement of government policy envisages, and I quote the schedule closure of existing plants, and as he has also said, the construction of a minimum of two and a half gigawatts of new or replacement efficient fossil fuel electricity generation progressively fitted with CCS. Progressively fitted with CCS is a very interesting phrase. It appears to mean possibly building a new coal or gas-fired power station in Scotland in the 2020s, in the hope that it can then be retrofitted successfully with carbon capture technology after the event. I hope that that would prove to be the case, but there are many problems with that basic proposition in the Government's position. There is an obvious paradox between a legal obligation to seek to meet wild leading targets on carbon emissions and a policy choice to allow new coal burning plant without CCS built in from the beginning. There is an equally obvious risk in basing an energy policy on the retrofitting of a new technology before that retrofitting or, indeed, that technology has been shown to work at the required scale. Most seriously, by appearing to imply that future energy needs can be met by burning coal, there is a real risk of the Government misleading the workforce at Lungannate about the real prospects for their existing jobs going forward. Hundreds of valuable jobs are provided directly at Lungannate, hundreds more indirectly. The sudden loss of so many jobs in the event of aniraclosia would hit the local economy hard, especially if the Government and its agencies have not fully engaged with the local community in good time. The prospect again makes the case for a resilience fund open to local councils to bid for support in the face of a sudden economic shock, and that is something that we call for again today. However, there is a duty on ministers to engage in meaningful discussion with the local council and the local community about what happens when Lungannate ceases to generate electricity from coal. That engagement needs to happen urgently, it needs to happen now, and it is on that basis that I move the amendment in my name. Many thanks. Now, Colin Patrick-Harvie, up to five minutes please move your amendment as well, please Mr Harvie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mardo Fraser indicated that he was trying to find the kindest thing that he could to say about my amendment. Well, I appreciate the efforts he went to. I'm happy to acknowledge I could have survived without that particular kindness this week. But let me repay the compliment, because there is at least something that I can agree with in his opening remarks. He makes it clear that the Government's position on placing the emphasis on recent developments regarding Lungannate purely on the transmission charging regime, this is at best a partial description of current circumstances. Mr Fraser's motion is quite right to mention the EU emission rules and carbon pricing. The transmission regime is clearly a factor, and I happily acknowledge that. I go as far in the minister's direction as that, but it's not a new factor, it's a long-standing one, and I find it hard to rationalise a position which places the heavy emphasis that he does on that long-standing factor on recent events. I mean, on the face of it, that's a fair point, but Mr Harvey will recollect quite well that this party has campaigned and in Government has campaigned for Project Transmit. The First Minister might wear back in 2005, and Project Transmit was supposed to have delivered a significantly improved position, reducing the price discrimination, but that process has been delayed to 216, and by judicial review potentially to be on that. I hope that the general point is made that this is one factor amongst many and that the minister has failed to place sufficient emphasis or recognition on the issues of emission rules and carbon pricing. I had to say that Mr Fraser's motion as well gives a partial emphasis on some aspects. He says in the third line that Longanic contributes 25 per cent of Scotland's electricity output at its peak. It's not enough in considering these questions only to look at electricity output. We also have to acknowledge that Longanic is by far and away the biggest contributor to climate change in Scotland, the biggest contributor to carbon emissions which are driving climate change, one of the most crucial threats that our civilisation faces in the 21st century, and it's a partial description of things only to look at the electricity output and not at that factor. I think that the minister's amendment also Lewis MacDonald's emphasis on the slight ambiguity around the wording in relation to CCS. Lewis MacDonald is quite right on that point. The suggestion that this will continue to play a role clearly seems to imply the suggestion that it currently does play a significant role, which it doesn't. As well as the use of the word progressively, which, as Mr MacDonald rightly identified, seems to lay open the possibility that additional fossil fuel generating capacity will be approved without CCS being an existing element. I refer members to the WWF briefing for the debate where they acknowledge their support for research into CCS. I have never, myself, been against research into CCS, including public support for that research, but it makes clear that the commercialisation of CCS has not yet been happening at pace. The Scottish Government, they say, has a responsibility to plan and cater for a scenario in which CCS does not establish itself as quickly as might previously have been hoped, and they call on the Scottish Government to review its energy generation policy statement accordingly. I think that that is an important point to make. As well as that being consistent with the long-standing expectation, as I mentioned in RPP 2, that the Scottish Government had a long-standing assumption that Longanet may close by 2020. Let's acknowledge as well that that transition we are in needs to be a just transition and there needs to be a far greater emphasis. I would say from both levels of government on the diversification of local economies, which are currently heavily dependent on forms of industry, in that case, forms of energy generation, which are short-term, which are not going to have a long-term future. Mr MacDonald's amendment said that the Scottish Government has responsibility for stewardship of the Scottish economy. Would that that were so? Responsibility is clearly divided between two Governments, and it is not enough to say that one Government has responsibility without having the power. Those wider issues about the just transition are echoed in the final part of the Green amendment, and I commend that amendment to the chamber, and I move it. I now move to open debate. Very tight for time, as I said. Up to four-minute speeches, please. Mark MacDonald to be followed by Kara Hilton. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I've got a lot to get through in these four minutes, so let's crack on. In terms of Longanet, the comments that are being made that transmission charging is only a part of what is affecting the station, but it's a £40 million part of what is affecting the station. If we look at the press release issued by the Prospect Union, it says that the union representing engineers, technicians and other professional staff in the electricity supply industry has warned the viability of Scottish Power Run Longanet, Scotland's largest power station, is threatened by a £40 million charge for connecting it to the grid, which penalises it in comparison to similar energy generation south of the border, a like-with-like comparison. Indeed, Prospect's national secretary says that we welcome the minister, Fergus Ewing's commitment to continue to put pressure on the Westminster Government who have responsibility for this matter. The union is identifying the transmission charging as the key element in terms of the Longanet situation. I only have four minutes, Mr Fraser, and I have a lot that I need to get through. In terms further of transmission charging, we also should accept that, contrary to Murdo Fraser's statements, it also does impact on the renewable industry as well. Scottish Renewables, in their briefing, provided to members, saying that leveeing higher charges on generators using the transmission network located furthest away from the main centre of demands can present a barrier to renewable energy generators, which must locate where the resource is strongest, often far from the main centres of demand. Renewable energy in terms of its location is not as flexible as perhaps other forms of energy generation might be because of the requirements of the resource from which they will deliver the energy and deliver the electricity into the grid. It is also worth noting that, in terms of Murdo Fraser's call for a new gas station on the site of Longanet, without the resolution of the transmission charging regime, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the proposal, if those transmission charges are not addressed, then any future station as Murdo Fraser envisages will simply find itself affected by the same transmission charging problems and the same economic barriers as Longanet is currently facing. That is the key in all of this, is to address the discriminatory transmission charging regime, which sees, as the minister highlighted, projects in the south of England being subsidised for connection and projects in Scotland paying through the nose in order to make the connection. I have to say that I am becoming a little bit concerned that the Scottish Conservatives are becoming overly obsessed with wind energy to the point of it being detrimental to them. I note, however, that they do not mind wind farms as long as they are perhaps the beneficiaries as a consequence of the income of those, but I think that it is a little bit perverse that, at the same time as the Tories seem to object to people being able to see a turbine from their window, they seem pretty gung-ho about having that same property drilled under as part of fracking and hydraulic exploration. I think that the position that the minister has taken in terms of a moratorium to address the clear questions that need to be answered is a sensible one, and certainly I would not wish him to be going down the same gung-ho route that Murdo Fraser and his colleagues seem to wish to go down on this. In terms of security of supply, it is worth noting that, despite the Tories' obsession with wind, there are other renewable options out there. Indeed, an Aberdeen Grampian Chamber of Commerce briefing that has been provided shows that, from their members, wave and tidal is a significant area that they wish to see being developed in terms of future demand. It is also worth noting that the British chambers of commerce have said that they want to see a 50-year energy security strategy from the UK Government. I think that it would be worthwhile to be calling for that before we are looking for an update to the very sensible energy strategy that the Scottish Government is pursuing. Thank you very much. I will now call on Cara Hilton to be followed by Chick. We have brought it up to four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to take part in today's debate in an issue that is of huge importance to Fife and to Scotland. Llongannet sits in the west side of my constituency, and many of the 260 employees are my constituents. Hundreds more are employed as contractors and subcontractors, and so many jobs locally in Concardant and West Fife are dependent on the plant having a future. As members are all well aware, Llongannet has been generating electricity since 1970 and has the capacity to put around 2,000 megawatts into the national grid. When I met with Llongannet management and workers just a few months ago, they were confident that there could be a future for the plant to 2020 and, indeed, quite a few years beyond that. However, the events in the past 10 days appear to have passed out in this, and there are now renewed concerns about the security of supply and about the future of the workforce. That is no surprise when we consider that Llongannet potentially keeps the lights on for more than 2 million homes and businesses. I am a supporter of renewable energy and I think that we need to do more to promote renewable energy sources just as we all need to do more to save energy if we have got any hope of meeting our climate change targets in Scotland. However, we have also got to guarantee that when we flick on the light switch that the lights come on, we need back up. I do not think that we can rely solely on an energy supply that depends on when the wind blows or when water flows. Around 25 per cent of the energy that we consume is produced at Llongannet. While we are hearing assurances that security of supply is not an issue, I think that if we want to be self-sufficient in Scotland, as the members and the SNP benches want to, it is clear that that is an issue. Right now, Scotland relies on imports of English electricity to meet demand for one in every six days. Professor Younger, who has already been quoted by Murdo Fraser, has warned that Llongannet's closure would leave Scotland in serious trouble and that we can be left absolutely dependent on England to keep the lights on. In respect of the talks between the Scottish power and the national grid that are apparently broken down and that have sparked this debate, it would seem as the minister has confirmed that transmission charges are not part of those negotiations. I think that more is going to come out about this in the coming weeks. We continue to hear conflicts and accounts from all involved in those talks. I really do think that this manoeuvre is not helpful at all for the workforce or for the families at a time when all involved should be concentrating and working constructively to secure a sustainable solution. My constituents want to know that Scottish power and the national grid are around the table negotiating to find a solution that maximises the life of Llongannet and their jobs into the future. Assurances from the Scottish Government that they are doing all they can to find a solution that will support the local community in and around Concardin and I am pleased to see the minister nodding his head there. Also to plan and meet our energy needs now and in the future. Workers are worried about their jobs, their mortgages and their families and they want to see action on this issue. The Scottish Government has long anticipated that Llongannet may have to close by 2020. Action has been taken to secure new employment investment into the Concardin area to ease transition to support the local community and to build its resilience. On behalf of all those directly affected in my constituency, I would be grateful if rather trying to shift the blame on to Westminster and to others that the minister and the Scottish Government will set out what practical steps will be taken to protect the hundreds of jobs in my constituency which depends on Llongannet to prepare the local community should the worst happen now and in the future. The Scottish Government needs a plan for the future of Llongannet and they need a plan now. An important related energy matter which is a huge concern to my constituents in Concardin and surrounding villages on the fourth is UCG and unfortunately I am running out of time but I hope that the Scottish Government will act too to extend the fracking moratorium to cover this extremely risky and potentially dangerous technique. As friends of the earth say UCG must be included in the moratorium too. My constituents in Concardin and West Fife want an assurance from the Scottish Government that there will be no fracking under the fourth and I hope that the minister will listen and take action. Many thanks. Obviously transmission charging is a big element of this debate but the first duty of a Government's energy policy is a guarantee of secure supply for businesses and consumers and to maintain that secure supply through reserve capacity. The UK Government are failing in this regard. The UK Government's white paper in 2011 said that low capacity margins could trigger supply shortages costing the UK economy £600 million. The UK Government failed in its handling of the electricity market reforms which has, because of its shillie shelling, has led to delayed investment in new capacity and indeed the mothballing of some existing capacity. And yet only four months ago at two meetings with some national grid managers we were told that reserve energy capacity margins for this winter would be as low as 4 per cent and when we then asked about next winter the pearls of wisdom were that they didn't know but they might seek to reopen mothballed gas fire stations down south or import energy from abroad in the event of possible outages. They just don't know. This is when we are talking of an imminent threat to the Long Annett power station. Nothing short of the national grid and off-gym senior officers coming to this Parliament to openly explain the basis of their analysis and their strategy is acceptable. And on top of the UK EMRs and the grid's apparent inability to clarify that strategy we have the Tories. The Tories calling for a new energy strategy for Scotland after applauding the single UK energy market that we subscribed in yesterday and today we are talking about a single European market. They hint at disappointment again of the removal of nuclear power stations as part of the energy mix and I have to say that Murdo Fraser misled the chamber when he said he was cheaper. New nuclear is expensive the strike price is £92.50 per megawatt hour which is twice the current wholesale price and we hear that and we know I won't I'm just about to finish and we hear that Murdo Fraser we hear that Murdo Fraser we hear that Murdo Fraser when a member deliberately misquotes what another member said in the chamber what steps can I take to have the record corrected the member can he wishes correct the record for himself it is not a point of order notwithstanding because Mr Brodie's remarks are a matter for him I think I was making a point and I think the point stands and we hear the newly adopted bleats about the possible reliance on Scotland importing energy from the rest of the UK Scotland exports an exported energy to the rest of the UK that is why long addicts must stay open not least of all because of the implication also for jobs that is why we must continue to encourage investment in a renewable energy mix of wind, tidal and solar that is why we need a dedicated capacity assessment for Scotland to which the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister who apparently has refused to take any action and that is why we will seek clarity on national goods numbers and on a policy that charges more for transmission as has been made clear earlier at major potential points of production like the western aisles Peterhead and Longannock get subsidised as major consumer belts in the south east of England it's the economics of the madhouse it is about transmission charges much more initially about policy around capacity and we need answers on that we need answers now West Lothian in my region has for 200 years or more been at the centre of energy development in Scotland Paraffin Young in the 1850s developed a refinery at Bathgate and Shellmines served across the west Lothian area we had oil refineries candleworks all operating in west Lothian and new villages emerging because of that industry this was the world centre of the commercial oil industry at that time and of course we had the coal industry pits littered the area employing thousands of men in villages like Blackburn West Calder, Armedale Brich and Whitburn and Polkemut being the last colliery that we had and today we are at the centre of a new energy that I can onshore wind development and with overseas speculators seeking to cash in on the rush to put up as many turbines as possible in the shortest space of time we have Austria and French, Spanish and Italian multinational corporations venture capital firms and wealthy speculators looking to cash in from communities they've never visited and probably could not point to on a map and this for me is the problem Presiding Officer while Shell produced energy it also produced other things it produced jobs thousands of jobs it produced homes for families some of them still standing to this day community halls minors welfare social clubs it provided services for pensioners education facilities galladies and the like creating and developing communities and while communities can and do get involved in community benefit negotiations with onshore wind energy developers and the big scheme of things the money and benefit received is crumbs from the table compared to the profits made by the speculators so I'm pleased to see in the budget this year an increase in the cash available for the new local energy innovation fund but this needs to be driven we need it driven by government it needs enthusiastic dynamic champion making this happen buying the first ministers table demanding action and I'm afraid to say I just don't see the minister in that role I've been for years calling for community development trust local authorities NHS boards schools and colleges to be allowed to run and develop renewable energy projects we should see them returning the profits in the communities that host the wind energy schemes no thank you not exporting the profits to the corporate board rooms across Europe and we should see them investing in initiatives to address fuel poverty cut heating bills for people and build new energy efficient social housing we're missing out one of the greatest opportunities to provide energy at the same time as empowering our communities energy planning requires a long term government strategy but too often we see companies taking a short term approach happy to cream off profits and dividends when the sun is shining but calling for tax cuts and subsidies when prices fall and the oil sector large multi nationals having coined in cash for decades now threatening workers with redundancy because of the downturn and the oil price in coal we see hard reefs threatening to get rid of another 250 skilled coal workers as coal prices fall as impacts on world prices Scottish Power has the permission to build a new plant at Kakenzie but little progress and who can forget Jim Ratcliffe threatening to hold the country to ransom over any loss and all this time we see fuel poverty increase and energy prices rise we need a mixed energy policy one that is more balanced coming from a range of sources all of them operating to the highest standards balance energy generation has to be our short term strategy that's common sense and that's why we must continue to urge the UK government's discriminatory charging regime to change as it's damaging Longanna and also damaging the future of Scotland's renewable industry but there's no contradiction in combining that short term pragmatism with the long term ambition to be a greener nation as the WWF report Pathways to Power says is achievable not tomorrow but by 2030 the research carried out by the respected energy consultant DNVGL rather flies in the face of the gloomy claims that renewable energy cannot provide base load power supply there are challenges with every type of generation in fact output from a thermal plant can drop off suddenly posing serious operational challenges as the national grid highlighted to the economy, energy and tourism committee the WWF report outlines two scenarios both of which fit within current Scottish Government policy the first high what they call high climate risk scenario involves the commercialisation of carbon capture and storage technology while the second which they call the low climate risk envisages a future energy supply without the use of CCS on a commercial basis and with no other gas, coal or nuclear plant on the system and according to WWF and their consultants they are both technically and economically achievable and they call on Westminster to make electricity market reform work better for offshore wind in particular stating regime under EMR is constraining the growth of offshore renewables to around one project under the first allocation round which could severely restrict growth in Scotland as they say current lack of ambition and certainty risk stymling investment in an industry with long lead-in times and a need for deployment at a scale to drive learning and cost reductions I share the concerns for our long annut expressed across the chamber and particularly for the future of the workforce figures from DEC however show that across the course of a year without long annut Scotland's electricity generation will still exceed demand we shouldn't forget that Scotland is a net exporter of electricity to the rest of the UK our challenge in the long term is to create sustainable jobs again that solution can be found already led to the establishment of an industry responsible for 11,000 full-time jobs in Scotland and billions of pounds of inward investment however there's one key dimension to the renewables revolution that deserves more attention in this chamber and that is Eric's energy storage technology being the Saudi Arabia of renewables is of little use without somewhere to store all this green energy Scottish renewables agree that by 2030 we will need better storage as well as increased interconnection Brian Richardson, my constituent and CEO of Energy Storage Scotland has convincingly argued that the development of storage technology in Scotland presents an exceptional opportunity for training jobs and to place in the global market and while we have a tried and tested technology in pump storage which we lead many other exciting energy storage technologies which are being developed around the world and which are universities like Herriot-Protts in particular are keen to develop further here in Scotland. On 5 March I will be hosting a presentation in Parliament by Energy Storage Scotland and Herriot-Watt's Energy Academy about the development of these technologies and I hope that members across the chamber with an interest in these matters will attend. Thank you very much. Many thanks. My apologies to the member who I have been unable to call and we now move the closing speeches and I call on Patrick Harvie up to four minutes, Mr Harvie, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful to John McAlpine for focusing some of our remarks on the WWF report cited in the Green amendment. It says me a little time in the closing speech but that report does set out a clear vision for producing a largely fossil fuel free and nuclear free energy system which would be achievable, credible cheaper than the alternative lower climate risk and yes secure and to do that by 2030. That security, I am afraid with four minutes I do not have time, I am very sorry. That security is not something which can be achieved in a stand-alone basis. No man is an island they say, no country that looks like an island geographically is an island in energy terms and it's going to be increasingly important that we have inter-connectivity not just to the rest of the UK but across the North Sea to the rest of Europe. I can't remember who it was but the phrase importing English electricity was used by somebody during the debate and I don't think any of us whatever view we took of the constitutional relationship between Scotland being worried about importing English electrons or indeed exporting electricity to other countries right across the North Sea there's going to be an increasing need for that inter-connectivity and I was sight actually the support of Ian Duncan the Tory MEP the other day who was talking about the need for high voltage direct current transmission across the North Sea so that we can trade different sources of renewables to match variable supply with various variable demand and do so efficiently without transmission losses this is part of the future that we have to see I think there was some brief exchange on the question of costs and in particular in relation to nuclear I wouldn't accuse Mr Fraser of deliberately misrepresenting his position or the facts but I would highlight the difference between the rhetoric that we so often hear particularly from the political right on issues such as so-called green taxes the parts of the subsidy for renewable energy generation which show up on our bill I would contrast that with the hidden subsidy for nuclear generation as the taxpayer picks up the tab for the decommissioning of nuclear plant the dramatically bigger amount of money that is going into that there is no subsidy free solution to our energy challenges we should not be ashamed of that we should be acknowledging that we can invest public subsidy in producing an energy system which meets people's needs securely not just today, but for the long term and that means sustainably none of this should deflect us from the need to address the questions of transition and to do so justly Neil Findlay's comments on the industrial heritage from fossil fuels I think are significant we must look to the future and we have the opportunity to do something that fossil fuel on nuclear cannot do which is to decentralise the ownership and thereby decentralise the economic benefits from our energy system renewables lend themselves to this in a way that fossil fuel and nuclear simply don't in the final analysis we need to recognise that brief little blip in this planet's history is a tiny century in which a bunch of allegedly smart apes have become so hooked on every form of fossil fuel that they could extract has bound us intimately and intricately with these products this period of history is coming to an end and unless we get to grips with the need for a just transition then we'll not only be failing our ecological needs we'll be failing our social and economic needs as well on Lewis MacDonald, maximum four minutes please Mr MacDonald Thank you very much and this has been a welcome debate and has touched on many aspects of power generation policy in Scotland but I'm glad that I particularly enjoy Patrick Harvie's effort not to say that no island is an island despite the sea around it but the energy policy he was putting forward I know is a very serious proposition but I'm glad that Cara Hylton as the constituency member focused so firmly on Lungannate and the West Fife economy and the debate about electricity generating options for the future although it is that it is also about support for people working in the power industry today and facing the prospect of losing their jobs of course we support on-going engagement between Scottish power and national grid between the Scottish and UK governments on this as on other issues we do not however accept the assertion that the threat to Lungannate simply comes from the transmission charging regime even if that regime does indeed stand in need of on-going reform the threat to Lungannate's future comes principally from the requirement to phase out high carbon emission power stations across Europe a requirement that is supported by both the Scottish and the UK governments nor would we accept the proposition that the way to ensure security of supply is to give the Scottish Government the power to set Scottish specific standards in this field as the SNP amendment proposes rather than dividing up responsibilities of capacity and security of supply at this juncture Labour believes that now is the time to move in the opposite direction by pulling together existing responsibilities in this field those responsibilities are currently divided among DEC, the UK department for energy and climate change of GEM as the regulator and national grid as the system operator rather than these bodies having to negotiate their different objectives to resolve issues such as those at Lungannate we would like to see a single energy security board with responsibility to take a lead in providing a joined up approach in that case we might also find that a more joined up approach can be taken to issues like transmission charges it certainly makes little sense to us to separate off the issue of security of supply in Scotland from the parallel issues in England and Wales when we operate a single electricity transmission and trading market and when Scotland consumes power from England and vice versa on a weekly basis the Scottish Government does of course already have responsibilities which bear upon energy choices in Scotland namely planning and environmental consents licensing powers in relation to unconventional gas extraction will follow before too long the question has been raised today for example of whether the Scottish Government's policy of a temporary presumption against planning consent for onshore fracking also applies to the onshore aspects of underground coal gasification below the Firth of Forth and if not, why not and we do of course already know how effective a planning presumption against development can be in relation to nuclear energy that approach by the SNP has effectively deterred investment in new nuclear capacity in Scotland and by doing so it constrains the choice of Scotland can make in seeking to move towards a low carbon future most importantly as long as there is a need for base load generation alongside intermittent renewable power it makes new unabated coal burning power stations more likely and not less likely in the future new unabated coal is not the answer to the crisis facing Longannad we need Scottish power as owners of the power station to live up to some of the promises of investment it has made in the past and we need Government agencies at every level to work with the company if it does that on reducing costs but we also need Government at every level to get serious about life after unabated coal both locally and fife and nationally if Scotland's commitment to a low carbon economy is to survive into the 2020s and that is what we call on the Scottish Government to do today many thanks and I now call on Fergus Ewing, Minister, maximum six minutes please thank you I'm glad that we have had the opportunity to debate this today especially because the imminent threat of the premature closure of Longannad in response to some of the points that were made in the debate which has been wide ranging and I can't really answer all of them I think we have made considerable progress in renewables deployment in Scotland with over 44% of gross electricity consumption met from renewable sources in 213 and I think that has been broadly welcomed in this country but we've always been clear that our renewables target does not mean and cannot mean that Scotland will rely on renewables generation alone I have always argued that back up and base load are necessary and members will therefore have heard me argue the case for the continued life extension the continued life of our nuclear stations at Hunterston and Tornes both of which I visited I have to point out too Mr Fraser unfortunately in his motion because he says that the nuclear stations are due to close by 225 that is not the case both stations are due to close in 2023 although we understand that there may be a life extension in the case of Tornes sought by EDF it's unfortunate that there's a factual error and perhaps in the scheme of things it's not as important as the key issue which is the immediate threat of Longannad and the other one that I identified our policy supports clean thermal generation as a part of a diverse energy mix when I consented the proposed gas plant of 1 gigawatt it was on the basis that as a condition of that consent it must be CCS ready our policy in coal to respond to Mr McDonald's line of argument was that it must have CCS on 300 megawatts now all of this is not new because it's been set out in our eGPS perhaps because that document is not what you would call the most riveting read it's maybe not widely understood but there it is and I hope members would accept that at least I am being consistent here so what do we say about the key issue which is the immediate threat of the premature closure of Longannad the key issue here and I don't want this to be political because it is as I think Kara Hilton fairly said too important for that I mean when I visited the plant again on Monday and spoke to members of the prospect union I was impressed by their obvious concern about this issue we all know that the reasons that have been unsiated about climate change as Mr Harvie has fairly argued about the emissions to a low carbon economy that Longannad does not have an infinite life and indeed the plant itself and the hope of the staff is project 220 that it hope to continue to operate then the fact that last year was its most successful operational year I would have thought proves that it is capable of doing so and the expenditure on tackling some of the emissions the sulphur dioxide emissions should have due credit but the single factor of this debate stripping it down to its essence is this that in addition to the legal requirements to reduce emissions in addition to the duties to meet its carbon levy duties which are faced by all cofar generating stations across the UK in addition to that it must find an additional £40 million that is a very substantial sum where Longannad located in the south-east of England then there would be a payment of several million pounds for it to contribute to the grid this problem is not new Mr Harvie pointed that out indeed the Scottish Affairs Committee identified it in 2003-4 but it recommended that it be dealt with and that's why project transmit took place with the aim of trying to bring about a fairer resolution in the minded two proposals of 214 but that has been delayed and therefore an answer is not yet here my hope, Presiding Officer is that national grid and Scottish power will reach a resolution of the negotiations which is not over the transmission charging regime it is about a supplementary balancing reserve national grid have a budget of around a billion pounds a relatively small amount of that will secure the future regrettably to date the First Minister raising this with the Prime Minister we have been unable to persuade the UK Government to intervene in conclusion I think I have time I can only give you six minutes it's your choice well all right I agree the much more he said about project transmit on these delays many of them are not of the UK Government's making but can they explain but the same regime which applies to renewable energy isn't preventing massive renewable energy development going ahead today very simple because wind farms have higher output than similar plants in England coal fire power stations have the same output it's a very simple answer let's get back to the key point this is very serious unless there is a resolution my information is that Scottish power must intimate to the national grid no later than the end of March project will be closed therefore unless negotiations are concluded successfully there is a great deal at stake that is a matter which I have taken extremely seriously not for months but for years Scottish power were optimistic at one point that the deal was being reached we are not satisfied that the assumptions made by national grid are prudent and in fact many of our experts take the opposite view we will come back to this chamber on this topic again it is too important to treat it as a political football thank you and to now Colin Alex Johnston to wind up the debate Mr Johnson maximum 8 minutes less would be helpful if possible thank you very much this was an attempt by the Conservative Party to bring forward an issue which is of genuine concern to many people in Scotland it was an attempt perhaps to find a way of bringing the positions of different political parties in this government together at such an important time and yet it has served as one more opportunity for political parties to set out radically different positions without recognising the imminence of the decision making that is in process the truth is that Scotland is a cold country Scotland is a country where energy is important and it's a country where the availability and the affordability of energy is absolutely critical not only on a domestic basis but also in terms of our industrial development and economic growth it's important that no one is left to freeze in the top of a tower block somewhere where the electricity is too expensive to buy but it's equally important that when Scottish workers go to their jobs that the lights come on and the motors begin to run that's why the generation of electricity has always been at the heart of Conservative Party concerns about energy policy here in Scotland and we have been raising this subject for years we've been raising it for so long that the landscape changes radically over time once we could say quite clearly that Scotland had five main power stations and that they together produced more electricity than Scotland could use we talked a lot about Scotland exporting electricity slightly misleading perhaps given the commitments we have to supply across the Northern Ireland Interconnector but nevertheless we were electricity exporters in the intervening time and largely at the instigation of this Government we have seen a massive shift over wind and have become increasingly reliant on it at the same time we've seen Cochensie clothes we've seen Hunterston downgraded we've even seen Boredom reducing its output Long Annett and Tornes remain the only two power stations in Scotland capable of achieving anything near their required output our need for nuclear energy is something which everybody actually agrees on we don't agree about replacing that capacity but nevertheless this Government and others in different political parties in Scotland have been very keen to see the life of Hunterston extended and we've heard today from the minister that the same approach will be taken on Tornes that means that everybody understands we are reliant on nuclear energy here in Scotland it's simply how long can we afford to go before we consider how it might be replaced the whole issue has been thrown into focus by the very immediate threat to Long Annett Long Annett is a high capacity coal-fired power station and one which is under threat for a number of reasons not least the fact that it does not meet what are likely to be the European environmental legislation that it will have to survive under in the future but we've said a lot today about the grid charging regime and I think again we've had perhaps a misleading representation the national grid is not free it costs money to build and it costs money to maintain the current regime whether we like it or not is designed to incentivise the pursuit of low transmission costs and to minimise losses within the grid now I support the Scottish Government's point that a more favourable charging regime would be welcome and I hope that we can see that come forward nevertheless it's ironic that that regime if it is a successfully achieved will be one in which Scottish consumers pay more and Scottish sorry English consumers pay more and Scottish generators pay less the truth of the matter is that we need to look ahead in this difficult situation we need to have a clear picture of where our energy will come from in 5, 10 and 20 years time we know that the capacity we have today will close down we know that Longanet will not survive beyond 2020 and we know in its current form and we know that our nuclear capacity thanks to the minister will disappear most likely by 2023 that leaves us in a position where perhaps our reliability and affordability of electricity may be called into question although if we were to allow Chick Brody to do the mathematics we perhaps could avoid that difficult conclusion giving that the strike price for nuclear energy which he clearly stated to be 50 per megawatt hour is apparently significantly more expensive than the equivalent strike price for onshore wind of 95 pounds per megawatt hour a secret which he declined to tell us when challenged earlier on the reality is that we are in a difficult position we need to address a key challenge the transmission and remember the transmission regime does not discriminate between generating methods and it seems perfectly reasonable that if investment is being made in onshore wind today at the same latitude as those power stations that we are discussing then it's ironic that this is a threat to coal fired reserves yet it is not a threat to wind generation and I think the minister was slightly disingenuous when he suggested that this was somehow because the output for onshore wind capacity in Scotland was higher than that in the south of England well that's a fact that is absolutely undeniable and has absolutely nothing to do with the impact of transmission charging we've had one or two key contributions today and I would like to draw attention to the first three quarters of the speech that was given by Kara Hilton she as a local member made it quite clear that the future of the workers at Long Anach should always be at the front of her mind and that's why it's so important that we remember that this is an important power station for the supply of electricity but also a very major employer within its area sadly Kara went on to spoil her contribution by reciting some myth and superstition about the shale gas extraction techniques we may adopt in the future the key proposal however that was made in the opening speech by my colleague Murdo Fraser was that we should consider the opportunity to look forward and build a gas-fired power station at the Long Anach site it is the case that we have an opportunity there to use the infrastructure that already exists the skills that already exist and ironically perhaps even the fuel supplies that already exist perhaps if the Government sanctioned the drilling of a few wells they might discover that the Long Anach itself is very close to a supply of energy that could supply it I'm afraid you need to finish as a consequence I support the motion the name of Murdo Fraser and commend it to the chamber that concludes the debate on an energy strategy for Scotland and we now move to the next item of business we're going into the next item of business very short of time and it is a debate on motion number 1, 2, 3, 8, 5 in the name of Liz Smith on STEM education in Scottish schools could those members who wish to speak in the debate press a request to speak buttons now please but I'm afraid I have to give warning that I may not be able to call every member a call in Liz Smith to speak to and move the motion please maximum 10 minutes thank you Deputy Presiding Officer this Parliament has obviously just debated energy policy and there were robust differences of opinion but clearly an agreement on all sides of the chamber about the crucial importance of the sector in Scotland because of the rich natural resources with which this nation is so blessed because of the resulting investment potential and of course the opportunity for future employment but that sector is not alone when it comes to its heavy reliance on scientific and technological skills and we know that by 2030 7 million jobs in the UK will be wholly dependent on these science based skills indeed in the eyes of many economic commentators Scotland's importance in this sector could grow more strongly than it does in the rest of the UK in the Scottish Government's own 2012 SEAG report energy and life sciences were identified rightly as the two key sectors when it comes to skills training and therefore it is plainly obvious that we must do everything we can to ensure that we are able to provide a highly trained workforce which has these scientific skills at present however our ability to achieve that is being somewhat hampered that's not to say that there aren't many encouraging signs there are according to the latest HESA statistics a growing number of Scottish students who have studied courses in computing that was up by 21 per cent in the past two years and I note the Labour Party's reference to computing in its amendment which we would have been happy to support but for the reference to the 50p top tax rate mathematical sciences it grew by 26 per cent in the same period and engineering and technology numbers have arisen by 10 per cent in each case there are also some encouraging signs there are 39 more presentations in science subjects in the last five school sessions although I have to say on this point I do question whether it was the right decision by the SQA to abandon the geology hire this year when it could easily have been argued that this science base is perhaps the most relevant to many of the offshore technology industries in Scotland which look certain to flourish in the years ahead irrespective of what happens to the oil industry that decision is even more extraordinary because of the trends elsewhere when it comes for the need for an interdisciplinary approach which, after all, is the key philosophy which underpins the curriculum for excellence indeed it is exactly why science exams are moving towards a much more focused basis when it comes to open questions moving away perhaps from the focus that it used to have purely on the traditional approach to knowledge base and that has come at the suggestion of representatives in the curriculum of excellence design teams who have come from industry the complementary move is to make science much more meaningful to the everyday lives of pupils in the case of organic carbon chemistry for example how it affects our lives in the form of fuel, cosmetics, plastics rather than just to give the scientific facts which describe its processes and that interdisciplinary approach is important and it was why I think the Scottish Government thought it would be achieved when they introduced the science Scottish baccalaureate until unfortunately it set the bar far too low and gave it virtually no distinctive characteristics from the separate higher and advanced hires and it's the reason why only 110 pupils across the whole of Scotland are taking it and why the universities don't really rate it as an added value qualification and that interdisciplinary approach is also something that is at the core of the Wood commission the needs of Scotland and our young people are changing fast in what is a fiercely global economy and they are changing because employers are wanting to be much more finely tuned when it comes to the labour force which is much more flexible and much more skilled when it comes to the diverse needs of the economy so while there ought to be plenty of incentives there remains very considerable concern amongst many of Scotland's foremost industries that we do not have anything like the numbers required to ensure that we will match our economic potential in the decades to come with greater diversity being required in the energy industry with the debates about climate change about transport, about communication and the very significant challenges within the health industry so that there is no end to the need for well-trained scientists and engineers 70 per cent of Scotland's exports come from science, engineering and technology related sectors yet the oil and gas industries continue to express their concern all of which brings me to teacher numbers in science set aside the political rami that is going on between the Scottish Government and COSLA about whose fault it is about teacher numbers and let's look at the Scottish Government's own statistics on science and maths with the exception of biology for which there are now precisely three more teachers in Scotland than there were in 2008 the numbers in maths, chemistry, physics general science and technology have all declined in some cases like maths and physics quite significantly for example there are 383 fewer maths teachers in Scotland now than when the SNP came to power how ironic is it then that at the very time where we see to take up science courses we see the number of teachers going down in the opposite direction I am not somebody who is persuaded of the argument that there is absolute direct correlation between teacher numbers and the ability to improve educational outcomes but nonetheless it is very hard indeed to argue with a 9 per cent rise in pupils sitting mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics and technology there is a corresponding drop of just under 10 per cent in teacher numbers and that is bound to have a serious impact so let me suggest some positive things that we could do in the first instance I think there is a very important issue about primary school science in the autumn last year the Royal Society of Chemistry made the call to have specialist science teachers in primary schools the Scottish Conservatives backed that call then and we back it again just now because there can be no more an important time to inspire youngsters than in primary school at this afternoon to tell us what it's going to do about this issue we also need to bring in some of our top science graduates to school education two things can do that we can learn something from elsewhere in the UK like the national science learning centre in York which provides very generous bursaries for teachers of science who want to enhance their cpd and secondly, via programmes akin to the teach first programme I agree wholeheartedly with the need for 100 per cent teacher registration and I think it's absolutely right that both the independent sector as well as the state sector is making the move to do just that long overdue in my view but that's not to say that we cannot also have fully accredited teach first programme running alongside to assist those who can bring additional experience to our classrooms many in the English system have been able not to have a job in Scotland because they are banned from doing so and that is simply unacceptable just to take up the theme of Professor Lindsay Paterson who argued two years ago at a Royal Society of Edinburgh event that we could do much more to help our very gifted pupils from whichever part of the educational system they may come from whatever background we need to do far more in that direction it fell on deaf years at the time but I think it is something particularly in the context of science that has considerable merit now I want to talk a little bit about teacher workforce planning not an easy task in any sphere but it is very difficult to get the demand and supply of teachers fully aligned particularly in what is a very fast changing world and recently after the Scottish Government's initial troubles on teacher numbers the cabinet secretary's predecessor moved with some degree of success to make that process a little more flexible two things matter in this whole thing firstly the absolute trust between central government and local government which at current time is obviously on a very sticky wicket and secondly greater flexibility when it comes up to freeing the supply of teachers and can I just declare an interest as I'm a fully paid up member of the GTCS in Scotland but I think it is absolutely right just now to say that much more has to be done to ensure that we can encourage a greater diversity of teachers in Scotland there have been serious issues about fully qualified teachers south of the border who have been prevented from teaching in Scotland simply because they don't have a Scottish qualification by all means carefully check that they meet the correct professional standards but don't bar them because if we do we are preventing some top class people from coming into the teaching profession and that is something that again I hope the Scottish Government will address because it has a direct influence on the number of science teachers in our schools so to conclude we have debated science issues many times in this chamber and I pay tribute to Ian Gray as a member who has a very distinct interest in that although I have no doubt whatsoever that there are some very good things happening out there the central issue remains that there is a declining number of teachers in STEM subjects at the very time where there is an increasing number of pupils wanting to opt for science courses and of course the very urgent need for this to happen in the benefit of economic development and the weakness of not having sufficient qualified science teachers in our primary schools is something that I think we need to have urgently addressed the evidence which comes from our academic bodies almost all of it extremely well researched over a very long period of time is absolutely compelling and it's on that basis that I move the motion in my name many thanks and I now call on Dr Alasdair Allan to speak to and move amendment 1, 2, 3, 8, 5, 0.3, maximum 7 minutes please thank you as Ms Smith will know this debate follows a not dissimilar motion in some ways by Ian Gray in a member's debate some five weeks ago raising some of the issues which I'm sure we'll speak about today around science and school and as then as Ms Smith mentioned there are many areas in which we can agree across the parties although one thing I will say is that I'm sure she will not be entirely surprised that I disagree with some of the premises in her motion and that reflects the fact that her motion is being amended today as our amendment makes clear that this Government agrees that all young people need a solid grounding in STEM education this grounding starts in primary 1 and builds progressively through primary school the science, technologies and maths experiences and outcomes of curriculum for excellence are making learning more exciting relevant and fun for all pupils in secondary school this learning and teaching continues through the broad general education to the end of S3 and we know that STEM subject specialists at the secondary stages in particular are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about those subject areas all of this grounding though is ensuring not only that record numbers of young people are taking science, technologies and maths subjects as has been alluded to but also that the education system is contributing to ensuring that we have a more scientifically literate population I will I thank the minister for giving way I absolutely agree with the minister but at this particular time when we do have more pupils wanting to access STEM subjects and it's obviously showing some trend with higher education and further education too is that not making it even more crucial that we increase the number of teachers in these particular areas there is an acknowledgement I'm glad to hear that the member does acknowledge that there are links between teacher numbers and the experience of young people in learning but I think I would certainly acknowledge to the issue that there are around some specific subjects not least computing science which has been mentioned where I accept there has been a reduction in the number of teachers available in the subject and where there are efforts under way just now to deal with that Government, chair, teacher, workforce planning working group met this morning to discuss among things this very subject and I'm pleased also that the targets that we are setting for a number of these subjects not least computing science are targets which move upwards every year and I certainly plan for them to do that the qualifications front is very important as well and as has been alluded to maths, physics, chemistry and biology are all amongst the six more popular national 5 and higher qualifications sat in 2014 and when compared to 2006 the number of pupils taking hires in 2014 in biology has increased by 14.2% in maths by 17% and in physics by 18% and chemistry by 24% so Presiding Officer I suggest that this on-going enthusiasm and positive interest in science and maths in schools is influenced by the considerable investment in what I'm sure Ms Smith will acknowledge and understand why to have been a very challenging fiscal period that all this investment is happening with the co-operation and the involvement obviously of local authorities and government together allowing STEM in schools to flourish and not only in learning and curriculum support but also in the quality of our teachers and of our school buildings and infrastructure and it is worth saying that the 1.8 billion that Scotland schools for the future programme represents demonstrates that commitment and ensures that we have science facilities in our new schools that are indeed fit environments to learn in the 21st century but arguably the most important thing in all of this is the quality of our teachers and committed to having the right number and quality of teachers in our schools that's why we just secured the commitment of each of Scotland's local authorities to maintain teacher numbers over the coming year and we have added £10 million to the £41 million already included in the local government settlement explicitly for maintaining those teacher numbers Ms Smith also mentioned the issue of the general teaching council for Scotland and I appreciate her knowledge she has of that personally I think it's worth being very clear about this that as an independent body they will make their own rules but I do understand that they are alive to the issues of making sure that we deal with hotspots around the country where there is a need to ensure that teachers come into the system but I have to be equally clear that I would be very surprised not trying to prejudge them in any way but I would be very surprised on the basis of what the GTCS have said till now if they were flexible to the point where they were enthusiastic about anyone who was not a qualified teacher becoming a teacher in a Scottish school I appreciate the member wasn't saying that but some voices elsewhere in the country have taken us down that line Last year we founded the Scottish College for Educational Leadership and earlier this week announced that from 2018-19 the new masters qualification for headship will become a mandatory requirement for new head teachers There are, I accept challenges and we recognise that STEM subject teacher numbers have faced challenges in recent years and we are, as I mentioned, taking steps to address that through the targets that we set Final minute minister I would really in that case like to conclude by saying there are many areas in which we can agree to work together not least one which is important to this Government which is to ensure that the number of women entering science professions is increased and encouraged We are not complacent about the challenges there are, we recognise the issues that need addressing and we are doing that We are supporting primary and secondary teachers and looking to find solutions to the many challenges of recruitment That's what you would expect any competent and sensitive Government to do and that's exactly why that's what we're doing We are now calling in great to speak to you in move amendment 1, 2, 3, 8, 5.1 maximum 5 minutes please Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I rise to move the amendment in my name Ms Smith is right, the teaching of science is a subject close to my heart but more importantly it is central to this country's economic future The Institute of Physics calculates that Scotland has 100,000 jobs in physics based industry some 4% of the workforce but because these are high-skilled high value jobs that drives 10% of the economy and that can only increase indeed at a recent event in the Parliament the institution of engineering and technology told us that by 2022 we will need 147,000 more engineers than in 2012 Yet science teaching in this country faces what I have called before a perfect storm The learned societies group have demonstrated that our schools do not have the resources to teach practical science properly They have warned us of a looming shortage in science teachers most notably in the crucial area of computer science where numbers fell by 14% in only two years and the learned societies group know that the targets for teacher training and computer science have been raised but they report that we cannot fill those places so they are not addressing the situation where 43 of our high schools do not offer computing science at all The Institute of Physics recently told a meeting in this Parliament of a similar shortage of physics teachers and reported that the brightest teachers were heading for England and no wonder here is the latest new scientist a whole page advert received 25,000 tax-free to retrain as a physics teacher that is not teach first the equivalent of PGCE a £25,000 bursary to train in physics Of course we would be physics teachers who are mobile are voting with their feet Meanwhile, as the new curriculum rolls out pupil numbers and STEM subjects are actually falling I know the minister quotes higher numbers holding up but the problem is coming behind that presentations at levels 3, 4 and 5 are down in physics, 8.8% in chemistry 8.9% in biology 9.4% in maths and not surprisingly 22.5% in computer science and the Government's own survey of numeracy levels reports a significant drop 2 at all levels Minister I thank the member for giving weight he will appreciate the difficulty of making comparisons between one exam system and another given the changes that have been at that level in education and also will appreciate that many people who do not choose to take a science subject in 4th year will do so in 5th year The next point is the figures he quotes do not take account of the new curriculum moving through into higher and advanced higher so not enough equipment, not enough teachers perhaps not enough pupils and not enough basic numeracy skills so where on earth are we going to get those extra engineers well in particular unless we do something we won't get them from girls and we won't get them from young people from our poorest families In Yes Scotland's excellent briefing for this debate tells us 86% of entrants to university engineering courses are still men and only 9.3% of entrants come from the poorest 5th of our communities they are going to miss out on these opportunities of the future and we are going to waste their potential the government's attainment fund is welcome and we have welcomed it but it is not enough it is temporary and it's targeting is flawed that's why we want to add an additional £125 million to that fund over the next Parliament paid for by raising taxes on the most prosperous of our citizens and targeted ruthlessly where it can make the most impact that would mean that pupils in this city for example would benefit rather than being ignored by the government's attainment fund and as for girls NUS make an excellent suggestion that the research excellence grant funding should depend on action to address the gender gap but the truth is, as Ms Smith said we must also inspire girls to take an early interest in science before gender stereotyping takes hold that's why the Royal Society of Chemistry is right to suggest a science teacher for every primary school Dunbar Primary School has its own science teacher and it is no coincidence that next week we'll see that schools 5th Science Festival attracting over 8,000 participants in an ever-expanding variety of events Presiding Officer there is little to oppose in the government's motion but in truth it reeks of complacency and abdures any self-criticism or even self-examination it ignores the voices of teachers, scientists and industry Science is always ill-served by smug self-satisfaction and we will pay a price for it in our future I'm afraid we're very tight for time speeches of four minutes but if members could take less I might be able to call everyone Stuart Maxwell to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm I'm very well aware of the concerns that have been raised in Liz Smith's motion of course the education committee has taken evidence on this so we're very well aware of it and of course the debate that Ian Gray sponsored a few weeks ago so we're well aware of the situation but I have to say it doesn't really reflect I don't think some of the comments the reality of the situation if you accepted what Ian Gray has just said and some others about there is some sort of cataclysm going on in Scottish schools so we don't have to accept that view of it at all the Scottish Government for example is investing in science education is providing for example some £900,000 per annum to the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre to support professional learning of teachers the reason that's important is because that particular money that funding stream includes a programme that is focused on primary teachers to raise their confidence and skills in science in fact the programme for government for 2014-15 states not going to quote to continue to support improvement in their learning and teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in schools with a particular focus on primary schools well very briefly very quickly would he acknowledge that there are different trends within the STEM subjects in teacher numbers than there are in some of the other secondary subjects that's part of the concern I'm going to try and come on to teacher numbers in a moment if the member excuses me one of the recommendations in the final report from the commission for developing Scotland's young workforce is on STEM and it says a focus on STEM should sit at the heart of the development of Scotland's young workforce and it calls for long term partnerships to be established between schools, colleges employers to bring about significant change the Scottish government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the young workforce commission so the very recommendation on STEM for it is already something that the Scottish government has agreed to take forward on the issue of underrepresentation of women in STEM subjects we all understand that is a problem on a serious one and has to be addressed but the cabinet secretary of education said there is no such thing as a girls job or a boys job in any perception that such unhealthy boundaries still exist need to be changed whether they're held by employers or young people exploring their career options guidance issued to the Scottish funding council on 31 July 2014 by the former education secretary Mike Russell said I want a renewed focus on reducing gender segregation in participation too many college and university courses are dominated by either men or women action is being taken of course it's not quick enough of course it doesn't have an immediate impact in terms of some of the changes we want to see but it has been recognised by the Scottish government and efforts are being made to try and reverse some of these trends on the issue of students taking science of course last year there was an increase in entries at higher in all three of the main science subjects including biology, chemistry and physics and pass rates are holding up very strongly indeed so I think as I said earlier it's not the cataclysm that some have suggested on the teachers number issue of course the deputy First Minister already announced that £51 million is on offer for councils for 2015-16 to protect teacher numbers and of course I won't quote the head of the EIS who came to committee earlier this year but also in the news reports and made very clear his view about the actions of individual councils and their responsibility about keeping teacher numbers up there was a deal struck but it takes two to tango when a deal is struck the government made sure it held up that's part of the bargain it's about time that some of our local authorities held up their side of the bargain in terms of teacher numbers and then we maybe wouldn't have some of the problems facing with teacher numbers declining Thank you very much I unlike my three Labour colleagues in front of me each of whom is a distinguished scientist or engineer I gave up science at 15 and I've spent the last 50 years of my life regretting it I have tried to remedy that in various ways but I'm passionate about science certainly and ensuring that more people continue to study and enjoy science I mean the economic arguments of that are articulated by all the front bench speakers but I think basically if we get this right in school it surely must be intrinsically interesting and endlessly fascinating for pupils and I say pupils because of course it should start from a very early age but there are certain worrying features that have already been highlighted in this debate the number of science teachers again that has been well rehearsed particularly in computer science and physics there is a problem in relation to the practice of science clearly that is one of the areas which is potentially very attractive to young people if they can be more hands on with science but one of the main features of the Learned Sciences Group report was the reliance on external funding which is featured in the Labour motion and for example 82 per cent of secondary schools said they didn't have sufficient resources for equipment and consumables for practical work so I think that is a very serious problem and Professor Sally Brown I notice highlighted that at the education committee three weeks or so a go there has been a bit of disagreement about the number of students taking sciences but I think Ian Gray did make an important point and again I noticed that this was referred to in that same education committee session I won't write, read out the whole quote but Dr Beverage said the figures that give us concern for excellent courses which have only reached S4 level in schools having looked at these figures we are concerned that we are seeing decreases in all the sciences so clearly there has to be a watching eye kept on that because that would be an issue of enormous concern if one unintended consequence of the curriculum for excellence was less people studying science so what do we do about it more partnership with colleges hasn't come up in the debate today but I think that's an important area that could be explored into the motion and we support that in our amendment is having a science subject leader in primary schools and I think that is vitally important I think the other way to look at this is perhaps having science requirements on primary teachers but that's not going to happen for the existing teachers in primary schools so that suggestion from the Royal Society of Chemistry which I think the Royal Society of Edinburgh has also made is I think very important I have to say I'm very impressed after my granddaughter has been for one and a half years at the science but I imagine as you go up primary school it's more important that the teachers should really have a grasp of science which many of them clearly don't have so I think we do have to do something about science in primary schools the other issue highlighted in the motion which we also support is of course more women more female science graduates and Ian Gray again gave the figures for engineering which are particularly stark 86% of entrance to engineers being men and I was certainly very privileged to be at the engineering event in the Parliament recently not least because Naomi Mitcherson young woman engineer of the year works as an engineer in my constituency and I was very pleased to have a conversation with her then and clearly she's emphasised the importance of changing the perception of gender in engineering but that has to start much earlier on of course in the school system I was going to say before gender stereotypes build up we all know that those come at a very early stage but they must be challenged that's clearly very important on the last point last but by no means least is positive action on the attainment gap so that more opportunities for STEM subjects and careers in STEM subjects can arise for those from the most disadvantaged areas exactly four months Many thanks Christian Allard to be followed by Liam McArthur I very much welcome the conservative debate today on education I know that the Institute of Physics in Scotland said that we should do more to encourage female science graduates and I think we are doing just that not only the Scottish Government but all of us in this Parliament across the political parties have done a lot to address gender and science technology engineering and mathematics participation and I would like to add something into this it's not an all and be all I like the words from the briefing of NSU and US Scotland when they say that STEM education is a crucial part of our education system in Scotland however we mustn't show that our focus in this area is not the exclusion of other subject provision and that I think Lesmith talked about that at the start and I would like to point that out and maybe remind Mordor Fraser who is just sitting behind Lesmith that languages are very important as well and French is very important as well in nano school so we've got to make sure that all those things are very much promoted Yes of course Lesmith I thank the member I entirely agree with, of course it can't be to the exclusion of other subjects but I think one of the main drivers in this is the needs of the economy and I think that's one of the reasons why there has to be much more focus on the STEM subject and tonight in Edinburgh there is the French ambassador the French UK ambassador who is meeting a lot of French companies operating here in Scotland I will suggest to Lesmith maybe to suggest to Mordor Fraser to maybe change his comments this morning and making sure that economic is what it's all about and we need to have a well rounded education for our children to make sure we can participate to the economy in Scotland and it's not only about STEM it's very important that we've got STEM and this debate is about STEM but it's got to be a rounded approach and French is part of it anyway the last thing this Government would do is to make it difficult for local authorities to fill the present vacation post in classrooms across Scotland because of course there is a problem of teacher numbers we talked about because as for the call of the specialist to my mind it's more wishful thinking but an answer it is ignoring the reality when many local authorities are struggling to recruit primary teachers I had for example the Peterhead parent council members who were concerned about attracting teachers to the blue tune and they told me what I said to them I said we are looking to widen the recruitment pool not to reduce it and that's important another message that Lesmith could maybe take to the conservative liberal democrat coalition at Westminster is to act regarding the foreign students who are studying here in Scotland and how we can make sure we retain them and we retain all these people to work here in Scotland and why not to teach because it's very very important that we widen our net as much as possible Aberdynshire council for example a few years past had recruited in Ireland had recruited in Canada and I think this is very important to widen the net as much as possible we don't want to stop a foreign student working here and this is very important I don't want to go back in my country we never know with the proposed referendum to take this country out of the EU I might be in that position in a few years time but today the reality is that despite the backdrop of cuts from Westminster the Scottish government is investing in science education providing knowledge and furthering to the Scottish school education research centre to support the professional learning of teachers and this is important because we are investing a lot in Scotland and it is an office of Scotland this Scottish government is moving forward local authorities are playing their part and we as a parliament must support the great work of our teachers teaching is a classroom here in Scotland Thank you Colleen McArthur to be filled by George Adam I too welcome this debate as Stuart Maxwell rightly pointed out it's an issue that has occupied the time of the committee education committee in recent times and I certainly acknowledge Liz Smith's track record on this issue and indeed Ian Gray's in fact today I was reminded of a comment Ian Gray made in the attainment debate last week where he accused of us of violently agreeing and I think we're at risk of doing something similar here this afternoon I'm certainly not going to accuse the government of doing nothing but perhaps focus on areas where we probably need to do more or do better in light of the figures that Liz Smith cited and the evidence produced by various academic bodies in recent times let me start with the Learned Societies report produced, published around the time of the Science and the Parliament event last year it raised serious concerns about spending on science in primary and secondary schools and insufficiency of teaching expertise and an absence of data wasn't just a whinge it made some reasonable and I think fairly achievable recommendations alongside this and in some senses I think the government's response to that was rather disappointing because rather than engaging with the issues it sought to discredit the evidence talking about small sample sizes rather than perhaps undertake or commit to amplify that survey and get the data, provide the evidence collect it on a regional basis on a whole host of areas not least qualifications of teachers commit to ensuring that by 2020 every primary school has access to a science subject look again at training and CPD opportunities to improve skill levels as I say all reasonable asks from the Learned Societies on vocational education the focus of my amendment and picked up very much in Ian Gray's the Wood commission again made a series I think of very sensible recommendations the delivery of industry recognised qualifications alongside academic qualifications during the senior phase we've seen as critically important I think a point Markham Chisholm made in referring to the college sector Sir Ian would emphasise that he not just a widen availability to improve the quality of what is provided and concluded that STEM must be at the heart of the development of our young workforce let me turn finally to the area of women in STEM STEM which is referred to in the Tory motion and plays a prominent part in the NUS briefing for this afternoon's debate tapping the talents report produced in June 2012 I think set out a fairly stark reminder of the challenge we face the RSE have pointed out that the number of STEM graduates and post graduates have increased but the numbers proceed to take up senior positions in universities, research, business and industry remain proportionately much smaller than in the case of the mayor counterparts now the minister in his opening remarks did acknowledge that and I welcome it the RSE talk about wasted investment and the representation of a serious loss of potential for Scotland I think it's calculated to be around £2 billion wasted to the UK economy as a whole this is not a new challenge the answer response from the public, private and the third sectors one of the recommendations in the tapping all our talents report is in relation to Athena Swann and it says that the Scottish Government through the Scottish funding council should expect universities to develop a strategy within a two year period to bring all their STEM departments up to Athena Swann silver award or equivalent monitor their progress in achieving this and ensure there is adequate funding for the programme to be developed of course Minister Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon at the time welcomed and accepted the recommendations almost three years on it would be interesting to know from the minister what progress has been made in this regard in conclusion Deputy Presiding Officer John R. Busknot says to be a smart economy we need to be strong in STEM that's why this issue matters it's why we're violently agreed in our shared ambition but also why the shortcomings identified by various academic and learning bodies are addressed as a matter of urgency Thank you George Adam to be followed by Elaine Murray Thank you Presiding Officer I welcome the fact that we all recognise importance of science education how it can equip our young people with knowledge and skills to contribute to society and as Liz Smith has already said to our economy but improving science, technology, engineering mathematics education is a key priority of the curriculum for excellence enabling new and exciting opportunities to make schools science education exciting to all pupils Presiding Officer brings me to a discussion that I had towards the end of last year with the head of engineering technology school in the university of the west of Scotland as many will know that UWS was a campus in Paisley was a technical college in engineering as the very heart and soul of the university or it should be at least anyway and he actually mentioned during the discussion that the problem they had was encouraging young people once they explained the career path once they explained how the young people could move on in life with the potential then it wasn't so difficult to recruit so they had to find different ways to recruit and interest young people into engineering in particular and technology and that was something as well that came up during the evidence we got recently from the Learned Society group where they mentioned computer science at one point but the problem with computer science was young people wanting to actually teach computer science but they were getting in a car or a bus or a train to Dundee to make the next computer game so that they could be in that industry and I think that is probably part of the issue that we are dealing with here as well is how can we make this interesting that the same young people want to actually teach as a future so what we are saying with some of the evidence that came from the Learned Society group we had the situation where there was a report that they did last year it was only a small percentage it was only 2 per cent of Scottish primaries and 13 per cent of secondaries that were involved but this is important to bring it up because they were the Learned Society group coming from a scientific background they knew that their report wasn't evidence-based to the extent that they could confidently say everything was right so I think that the Government is quite right to bring up the fact that there was not as much time I would love to Mr MacArthur but I can't at this stage so in their evidence they actually said as well Stuart Farmer said of the Learned Society group the basic knowledge and science subjects I think has taught well lots of people are seeing positive benefits for studying science and I think one of the things that I agree is how do we get to where we want to be because we need to ensure that young people are aware of the potential future that they could have it's been mentioned already but she brought up the fact that there wasn't such a thing as a girl's or a boy's job and I think we have to make sure that we move away from that when we're talking about STEM subjects as well because it's important that we get everyone from all types of backgrounds as well but in the case one of the briefings that we received for this debate was from NUS and Macaulay Christian-Allars already mentioned that NUS Scotland said we have seen a strong focus on access in the last few years and the current drive to improve participation and attainment across Scottish education is welcome. However, we must build on this not only for STEM but more generally for post-16 education as a whole. I think for me, the debate we had last week in attainment, this for me is a real life changing debate we have. We have a situation now where the Scottish Government has committed himself to the Scottish attainment challenge and the attainment fund where they're going to be investing in people difficult backgrounds to ensure that they get that opportunity and I think when we're having this debate yes, let's make sure like NUS Scotland say, let's make sure that we're talking about the STEM subjects but let's not forget about everything else that's happening out there in education and ensure that we encourage everyone to be all they can and pursue whatever career they want in the future. Many thanks. Before I call Elaine Murray can I apologise to Richard Lyle I'm afraid we've run out of time and I can't call him Elaine Murray. I'm grateful to the Conservative Party for bringing this important subject back to the chamber. We talk a lot about Scotland competing globally through developing a high-scale high-wage workforce however unless we invest adequately in developing that highly skilled workforce it will not happen. Ian Gray has spoken about the review conducted by the Institute of Physics. Ian often has a dig at me for being a physical chemist so I would say to him that a report by the Chemical Sciences Scotland on the skills investment plan that almost 80,000 people were employed as a result of the Chemical Sciences sector, a turnover estimated to be about £8.6 billion and a GVA of £1.1 billion but that report identified the need to increase the flow of new entrants into the chemical sciences including through developing career information and also addressing gender imbalance. Our global competitors understand the importance of investing in science and innovation. China intends to spend 2.5% of its GDP on research by 2020, Brazil the same by 2022 and South Korea 5% by 2022 and we can be certain that those countries will be investing in producing the people who can undertake that research. We know from the 2012 programme for international student assessment of school students aged 15 that the UK does perform slightly better than the OECD average in science. England actually performs slightly better than Scotland but we are behind China, Japan, South Korea, Finland, Poland, Germany and other competitors so there is nothing to be complacent about. We need to do better in Scotland and we need to improve educational attainment in schools to attract more students at college and university level into science courses and to retain workers with science qualifications. We need to also close the attainment gap because far too many children from poor families are not getting the opportunities to fulfil their potential and that cannot be done without enthusiastic and incredibly qualified teachers in both primary and secondary schools. Primary school teachers are expected to teach across the curriculum and should have access to a science specialist to increase their confidence about how they approach teaching science. I do not think that it is necessary for every school to have a science specialist attached on to that school. Small schools could have access to science specialists through cluster arrangements for example. In April it will be three years since the report to which Liam Carthor referred from Professor Jocelyn Bell Bernell's working group on women in STEM was published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. That report contained a number of recommendations including some for the Scottish Government. For example, to produce an action plan for Scotland aimed at retaining and promoting women in STEM which they said should be led by a cabinet secretary and I would be grateful if the minister in summing up could advise whether this piece of work is under way and when the action plan will be produced. The report also proposed that all STEM departments in Scottish universities should achieve Athena Swan silver award or equivalent as a minimum standard within two years and the majority of departments should do so within three to five years. Is the Government monitoring progress on this recommendation and nearly three years on has the minimum standard for all STEM departments in Scottish universities now been achieved? Presiding Officer, I have stated in this chamber before that I left academic scientific research shortly before my second child was born. She is now 27 years of age and I am shocked that a generation later women are still leaving STEM subjects for the same reasons as I left and that we are still debating attracting and retaining women in STEM subjects. Unless we act in Scotland and in fact unless we act across the UK we will lag behind our competitors in science and this is an era in which we have historically had a huge advantage we risk losing that advantage if we take action. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches and I call in Mark Griffin. Four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. We've heard a lot about the provision of STEM education and skills this afternoon but for me the key point was the one made in the opening speech by Liz Smith which is the expectation that by 2030 over 7 million jobs in the UK will depend on science skills. Science roles are exactly what we need high quality, high skilled and highly paid jobs. By 2030 the four and five year olds who are starting primary school this summer will already be in work or possibly in the final years of university. If current spending levels continue the same pupils with the same academic ability and the same aptitude for science in England will have enjoyed over 10 years of university education with 80 per cent more in primary school and 27 per cent more in secondary school spent on science equipment according to the recently published report from the Learning Societies Group. We've heard the sample size of that study raised again but I think that if the Government want to criticise the findings of that then they have an obligation to expand on that work and do some work. That issue of science equipment has already been raised in Parliament there's also the issue of science technicians and support staff I've recently submitted an FOI request to all 32 local authorities on science technician numbers and have received 25 responses so far there's been an overall drop in the numbers of science technicians with one authority cutting technician staff by over 50 per cent those are the staff who are maintaining or repairing what little practical science equipment we actually have in our schools and they're the people who are setting up the science labs the complex experiments that teaching staff just don't have time for and it's hard to see those numbers go anywhere but further down as budget cuts to local authorities continue to buy there are also issues in schools and local authorities when it comes to computer science which were flagged up to the education committee recently many high schools don't have a computer and science teacher who can start developing the coders, programmers and software developers of the future and a particular issue in some local authorities is that they seem to confuse the role of teaching of computer literacy skills with computer science skills and that's again mixing up the picture of exactly how many computer science teachers we have in our schools finally there is the issue of educational inequality there will be 7 million jobs dependent on science skills in the UK by 2030 but unless that attainment gap is tackled by the millions of young people in deprived communities who will never achieve their full potential to access those jobs we've welcomed the Scottish attainment fund but we would like to see more we would use the additional revenues from a new 50p top rate of tax redistributing resources from those who can afford it to those who need it most we would invest an additional £25 million per year to tackle educational disadvantage and ensure the pupils who face the greatest educational challenges have the opportunity to achieve the qualifications they need for a career in science, maths, engineering and technology and I would challenge the Government to back our ambition and support us with that increased fund to tackle educational attainment thank you many thanks minister, six minutes please thank you at this point it's traditional to say that it's been a positive debate and I think to a large extent that comment is justified it has been a useful debate there are areas in which we agree and I suspect that Mr Gray wrote his comments about a tone of smug satisfaction before listening to the tone of what I and many others actually had to say on many of the areas where work needs to take place where improvements do need to be made I think we've all agreed about the need for instance around computing science to encourage more people into that line of teaching I think we agree about the importance of the work agenda and developing that further about giving confidence to primary teachers around dealing with science and perhaps quite rightly a theme that's occurred again and again that young women are attracted into science as an area of study and as a career or indeed as Elaine Murray and Mark Griffin have mentioned in this debate the extent to which we have to ensure that we close the attainment gap for science as for other areas something to which the First Minister has of course indicated her strong commitment but it's worth also mentioning as well the good practice that there is and I'll only do this briefly but the good practice that does exist and that I see in schools when I go around the country and visit science activities there East Ayrshire for instance have opted into the primary engineer programme which is supported by the institution of mechanical engineers Aberdeen City Council have made science a priority area in their primary schools Pathfinder activity to deliver foundation apprenticeships in 2014 with support from Skills Development Scotland so there are many things happening I think when we turn to the areas that need attention a great deal of speakers a great number of speakers referred to the welcome contribution from the Royal Society of Chemistry and others in the learned associations particularly societies particularly their focus on how we can support primary stem in the primary sector isn't the area which can be further developed that teachers do need support to help them build their confidence I've been corresponding with Claire Viny the chief executive of the Royal Society for Chemistry on these issues on engaging with their campaign and my officials are working to agree a suitable meeting date with the RSC and while I must say we do have no plans to require a move away from the generalist tradition that there is within our primary education sector I am alive to the points that have been made about giving primary teachers the confidence and the capacity to teach science Malcolm, yes Aham Liam McArthur I'm very grateful to the minister for taking the intervention and I think a constructive approach in relation to the learning societies one of the key points though was the lack of data to serve at the under 2 will the Government recognise there is a need therefore to develop that data so we have a better understanding of exactly what the need is and where it is needed as I've mentioned that correspondence around these issues is already under way with the learning societies I want to turn briefly to the point that was raised by Christian Allard and others I don't want to set up any kind of competition between the case for languages or the case for science or indeed other areas of our curriculum but I suppose the fact that members raised these issues does point to the fact that we do have to be careful about prescribing the hires that people who are interested in becoming a primary teacher take at school to the point where they do not have any choice about what hires they do so there are competing claims that we have to handle where carefully Liz Smith made a number of reasonable points around many of the issues I've touched on We are open as a Government to learning from good practice where we see it whether, as I said, that is in London whether it's in Ontario Teach First was mentioned by Ms Smith I want to say that Teach First have been in contact with the Scottish Government we have indicated to them that we're very willing to hear from them any proposal they have for Scotland subject of course to the fact and I made this point earlier Scotland has a tradition very much emphasised by the GTCS that you do have to be a qualified teacher to be a teacher in Scotland we await any response from Teach First to see if they have a proposal that they wish to bring forward for Scotland George Adam we were having a have to confess a sweepstake here took 34 seconds to mention his constituency this particular occasion but very commendably so and rightly mentioned the achievements of the university sector and it is worth commenting that the number of entrants into university first degrees in STEM is up 13% this year Malcolm Chisholm rightly mentioned colleges and again the statistics there are encouraging and significant the fact that compared with 2006-07 there are 801 more full time equivalent science and maths students in the knowledge sector I just want to say by way of conclusion or do you wish me to continue for some time no I do in that case wish to say by way of conclusion I'm happy to say by way of conclusion that science is at the very heart of Scotland's economy it's at the heart of our education system yes there are challenges as I think we have all agreed but there are sound verifiable reasons for saying that schools around Scotland have that view that science is growing in its importance it's flourishing in our schools and it's something for us to celebrate therefore move the amendment in my name thank you very much and I now call on Mary Scanlon to wind up the debate Mrs Scanlon you have until just before 5pm thank you I'm very pleased to close the debate this evening and I would like to thank all speakers for the positive contributions that they've made I did feel that there was plenty of heat in the previous debate and I think it's fair to say that we had perhaps a little bit more light in this one there is of course much in the SNP amendment that we agree with but we still feel that more needs to be done to address the central issues raised today and I did actually feel that in Dr Alan's summing up that he had there were much more encouraging signs of that than in his opening statement and we are delighted about that but like others I've listened seriously to the concerns expressed by the STEM industries about the state of science education in Scottish schools and as Liz Smith said by 2030 it's expected that there will be 7.1 million jobs in the UK will be science related and current projections from the Science Council would indicate that around 650,000 of those will be in Scotland so I think we can all share that we want children in Scotland to get full advantage of all of these opportunities in Dr Alan's contribution he talked about setting targets for teachers it's not the setting of targets we hear in the health service and everywhere about the setting of targets and the setting of targets is welcome as a target but it's the achieving of the targets it's the supply of teachers that we're looking for so it's very easy to say I set a target that's good and it's welcome but we'd even more welcome the achieving of the targets and an adequate supply of teachers but in the SIAC report from 2012 the Government recognised that life sciences and energy sectors were industries key to economic growth in Scotland projections for growth in STEM have also been confirmed by these industries which is why it's imperative to capitalise on the opportunities this presents for all our young people and particularly females to take advantage of this potential for economic growth Ian Gray and Liz Smith in particular have excellent contributions particularly on the STEM education gender equality and highlighting potential career options for future and whether or not Ian Gray had members debate recently I actually think of it's worth saying it's worth saying quite a few times and I think this issue is so important we really felt it was worth bringing back to the chamber for the wider debate we'll make no apology for that I remind the chamber that female scientists have also excelled in politics the UK's first female Prime Minister for example was indeed a scientist and I think there's very few around the European economic community would pick an argument with her Mrs Merkel who of course used to be a research scientist in a previous life and she's brought to politics absolutely first class scientific and analytical skills with some considerable success Christian Allard reminded us that languages are important and yes but the debate was about science but nonetheless well done learned societies of course raised some excellent issues and I would also say that Larry Flanagan from the EIS raised his concerns in evidence to the Education Committee talking about teachers being trained in Scotland and fast-futing down to England I don't know why I thank Ian Graff for showing us the new scientists this week but I do think we need to understand that better we need to understand why and I think we need to look at what's happening there Ruth Davidson highlighted the college places in STEM courses down by 30,000 30,000 reduction in STEM opportunities on the SNP's watch but never mind the set a target to redress that and within what can you just finish please it's quite important because I'll have to repeat it again 30,000 reduction in STEM places at colleges on the SNP's watch but never mind the set a target to change it and within one year they brought back 82 places so that's that's what a target means pretty well nothing unless it's a few thousand I'm not sure if the member heard me but as I mentioned the figures for full-time equivalents which before she interrupts me on that full-time equivalents are generally regarded within the industrial sector the most important measure the increases in the numbers of full-time equivalent students doing science subjects which there have been under our watch Mary Scanlon I don't think you can argue too much about the 30,000 and your little miniscule increase of 82 I would also remind George Adam that I think what on occasions can be a problem for Paisley is sometimes occasionally a problem for the rest of Scotland too so thank you very much Mr Adam for that but one important point I really wanted to mention and I think this is absolutely critical and it's about the maths being the language of science and a fluency and numeracy is absolutely critical for the success of all stem fields it is surely unacceptable that we have lost 383 maths teachers as part of the 10% decline since 2007 and talking about numeracy I think everyone in this chamber should be concerned or probably are concerned at the Audit Scotland report where only 2% of P7 pupils are not working at their expected level of numeracy perhaps this is within expectations but what I do find shocking and unacceptable is 2 years later in S2 it's not 2% that aren't achieving the numeracy standards it's 35% are not achieving expected levels of numeracy so what happens between primary 7 where 2% don't achieve numeracy standards 2 years later 35% don't and I would have