The next item of business is a debate on motion number 2418, in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville on the Scottish Government's consultation on a strategy for science, technology, engineering and mathematics, education and training. Would those members who wish to speak in the debate please press the request-to-speak buttons? I call on Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak to and move the motion around 12 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. On Tuesday this week, I have had the great privilege of spending time with the children and teachers at Cardinbridge primary school in Dunfries. There I saw P6 and 7 pupils enjoying an interesting and lively lesson making kaleidoscopes, learning along the way about the principles of light, combining science, technology and mathematics into one practical, lively and very interesting lesson. I heard how their close partnership with a local manufacturer developed over a number of years as helping the children at the school to develop an appreciation of the skills needed in a workplace. I was at that primary school to launch the Government's consultation on a STEM education and training strategy for Scotland. What I saw there really does encapsulate the aims of the strategy perfectly. Excellent, a deep attention to learning and teaching quality. Equity, ensuring a quality experience for all, regardless of gender or circumstances. Inspiration, inspiring and enthusing people to study STEM. Connection, the school making the most of the links with local employers to bring the learning to life and the employer securing their talent pipeline. Put simply, all children and young people need to have this kind of experience during their school age. On this and only this, I agree with the Labour and Conservative amendments today when they say that urgent action is needed and is required to develop STEM skills, knowledge and capability. They will be assured then that such action is indeed well under way. The consultation that I launched on Tuesday sets out an ambitious and comprehensive plan, the first ever single plan co-ordinating all our activity across government for developing Scotland's STEM, talent and capability. I in particular want to thank Professor Sheila Rowan, Scotland's chief scientific adviser, for helping me to develop this strategy and for agreeing to help the government forge strong links with the science community as we take that forward. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics are the cornerstones of modern life and in a modern competitive economy. We all need to be STEM literate to succeed at work, particularly the growing range of careers and occupations dependent on the specialist STEM skills. As I saw at Cardinbridge on Tuesday, STEM ignites our curiosity about the world around us. All our children and young people need to develop STEM skills and confidence throughout their education, as do adults too. That is why we are already taking action. Developing the young workforce is driving action nationally, regionally and locally to ensure that children and young people gain the STEM capability that they will need in the workplace. We have also got the most comprehensive package of support for science engagement in the UK through our science centres and festivals. We are taking action to support science provision all the way through primary school, including a £3 year £1 million partnership with the Wood Foundation, which from this month will see primary science leaders in place in five initial participating local authorities and an investment this year of £855,000 to upskill primary and secondary teachers and technician. The cabinet secretary outlined yesterday the very fair point to a science conference close to here that the number of students pupils sitting science subjects at a higher level, maths subjects and computer subjects, was falling. Is the strategy going to deal with exactly that point? Does she have an explanation for Parliament this afternoon as to why those numbers are going the wrong direction? Shirley-Anne Somerville In part, the numbers are going down because there was a decrease in the number of students who were in that year in school. There has been an increase in certain aspects such as human biology and computing science, but Tavish Tukot does read a very important point that we do need to enthuse more people to take part in all those subjects in their schools. We have recognised that there was a dip last year, although I would point out over the longer term that the numbers are pointing in the right direction. I know that the Opposition likes to pluck statistics out, particularly if there is a bad year to point out, but, as I said, the trends overall are positive. Since 2007, there has been a 7 per cent increase in passes at higher and stem subjects. We want to keep that long-term trend on track and enable more young people to study for stem-related qualifications and, crucially, to achieve those qualifications. One area in which we can also agree needs to be addressed is the gender imbalance in stem. On this, we are making progress with a number of girls taking and passing hires in key stem subjects increasing since 2007. There are other challenges, and our strategy sets out how we will tackle those. Alison Johnstone I welcome the strategy's intent on gender segregation, but can the minister commit to pushing that right up the agenda? The minister and I attended the Equate Scotland reception recently and heard from many women enjoying fabulous careers. It is really important that we make sure that all our young people have the opportunity to be involved. On the young people front, can the minister commit to ensuring that all our young people have the chance to attend the fabulous science festivals and so on that take place in Scotland? Alison Johnstone raises two very important points on the aspect of girls and young women taking up stem subjects. I had the opportunity to visit City of Glasgow College recently and met some women who were taking part in a women-only first-year engineering course, which was very important to them. I think that that will be a very interesting point to tease out during the consultation to get further evidence back about that, because it clearly made a difference to those women and we need to see how we can extend and incorporate that if it helps the women that are there. On the science festivals and centres that we have, it is already within the strategy that we need to make sure that that extends to every young person in Scotland, regardless of where they are. I am particularly keen to seek advice and suggestions on how we tackle rural areas, those in deprived communities and young women, to ensure that they are all getting the maximum benefit that they can from that. I am happy to take those points on board. We need to improve the levels of stem enthusiasm, skills and knowledge to raise attainment and aspirations in learning life and work, but we also need to encourage and promote the uptake of more specialist stem skills required to gain employment in the growing stem sectors in our economy. As I mentioned, there are four priority themes of excellence, equity and inspiration and connection within the strategy. Within the theme of excellence, we will take action to improve the numbers of stem teachers in secondary schools. We will build on the success of last year's marketing campaign to attract more people with stem undergraduate degrees into teaching, and new and innovative routes into stem teaching will be in place from next academic year onwards. We will also help teachers and educators to build their own stem capability and confidence, particularly in primary schools. I was wondering if the minister could spell out in more detail what those alternative routes might be and what they will mean in terms of qualification and time spent in training. Will there be a guarantee that the full teaching qualifications will be required before people teach in a classroom? Shirley-Anne Somerville I will not go into detail on that in this particular debate, because the consultation and the delivery of that will come very soon with a number of responses that we have had in. It is important that we secure the qualified nature of people in our schools and encourage people to get into that, rather than changing the basis of teachers in our schools. The qualifications are still very important in that. We will also deliver on making maths count recommendations for improving young people's confidence and fluency in mathematics. We will also continue to encourage colleges and universities to prioritise stem courses through the outcome agreement process. On the theme of equity, we will take action to address gender bias in young people's career options, including by expanding our successful collaboration with the Institute of Physics in proving gender balance projects. We will always seek ways to ensure gender imbalance in college and university stem courses are tackled and also within modern apprenticeship routes through the equity action plan. On the theme of inspiration, as I have mentioned to Alison Johnstone, we are very keen to support the science centres and the festival to engage all people of all ages into STEM and to direct that at hard to reach individuals, groups and communities in deprived, rural and remote areas. The making maths count group said earlier this year that the Government needed to do more to help people to understand the relevance of mathematics to daily life and work, and we will do that by finding new ways to remote the value and benefit of broader STEM learning as well. On the theme of connection, we will embed STEM careers and awareness within STEM teaching and learning at school and help practitioners to do that. We will encourage schools to use the labour market information and their links with employers to design and deliver a relevant STEM curriculum for their children and for young people. We will promote new pathways in STEM careers, including the continued expansion of pathways that can begin at school, for example, through foundation apprenticeships. Actions that cut across all of those themes include the very important manifesto commitment that we had to ensure that a Scottish STEM ambassador programme is developed to bring inspiration to young people, helping more schools to develop high-quality, embedded partnerships with local employers and individuals, including in the public and third sector, like I saw at Cargoon Bridge. We will also encourage peer-to-peer mentoring and support for STEM. We will explore hub arrangements to achieve deeper connections and collaborations between education and employers, and we will learn from international best practice on that, including the Finnish Luma centres in Finland that were mentioned in the recent STIMEC report. That is very much just the start. We are open to new thinking, creative solutions and bold ideas. I am particularly keen, during this consultation process, to hear from children and young people, as well as parents and carers. We also want to hear from education practitioners, employers and the STEM community. I am pleased that many in the sector have commended our move to consult, including Professor Yellowlees, the convener of the RSE's Learned Societies group on STEM education. It is disappointing therefore today that the Opposition parties have united in the main to reach out largely inaccurate claims. We all agree that there is more to do, but consulting on that strategy shows our willingness and our absolute commitment to address all of these, and to listen to others' ideas. If the Opposition parties have them, I would welcome hearing them. While we are waiting for those to happen, I will get on with the chief scientific adviser to engage with the larger sector and with the community to see how we can develop a STEM strategy that will enable us to meet the demands and challenges of our economy and build on the society that we want to see now and in the future. I move the motion in my name. I am interested in the fact that the minister has made a comment that this is just the beginning, in a situation in which she wants to hear what the suggestions are from the Opposition parties. I looked back at the last decade of parliamentary debates on STEM, and I was very struck not only by the frequency of them but also by the consistency of the propositions—I do not agree with them all—but the propositions that were made by individual parties and broadly agreed in some cases. I have to say this afternoon that that will be no different, because I think that there is a very strong case to be made this afternoon that the Opposition parties have actually been making very sensible suggestions for quite a long period of time. We seem to be standing still to some extent. There is no disagreement about what the Scottish Government's motion is saying, but it leaves out something that is very significant. If you consider what was said in the introduction to the SIAG report of 2012, when the Scottish Government had quite rightly, in my opinion, identified the energy and life sciences were two key priorities in Scotland, what is it that has held us back? Some of the statistics—we all use statistics to our own advantage, of course we do—but the overall set of statistics on STEM are really not good. Can I just remind the chamber of what Tim Peake said when he came back from that wonderful space mission when he spoke to thousands of youngsters and he said, Never let anybody tell you that you can't do something. I think that it was a message to all of us that there are lots of budding scientists out there, but there is something that is holding them back. That is what we have to address in this debate. I may suggest that, in Scotland, a large part of that problem relates to teacher shortages in our school, not general shortages, but specific shortages. Something that was hinted at by the cabinet secretary when he spoke to the Royal Society of Chemistry yesterday. I am sure that the Opposition parties this afternoon will use their statistics for the work that they have done over quite a long period of time, but can I just summarise it briefly? This is over a decade that we have 410 fewer maths teachers, 187 fewer computer teachers, 105 fewer chemistry teachers, and we also have, obviously, some concerns that there will be decreases in other subjects, not least because there are some worrying downturns, as Tavish Scott has rightly referred to when it comes to higher and advanced higher entries. Yes, it is true that some cohorts of pupils have declined in number, but that over 10-year period is still a very worrying downturn. 10 out of 32 local authorities have had trouble recruiting a computing teacher. 12 per cent of schools do not have a computing science teacher at all. Computing at school Scotland is not the only organisation to be critical about that. The STEMET report notes a failure to meet the targets. Yes, of course. Shirley-Anne Somerville I am grateful for Les Smith for taking intervention. Will she be pleased to welcome the figures from last year, which show that student intake number for chemistry is up, student intake number for physics is up, for maths it is up and for computing it is up? There are issues that we need to take on board. We have been increasing the number of student figures fifth year in a row, and we are taking action on it year by year. Les Smith I thank the minister for that. I have the statistics right in front of me, but there are general statistics on top of that that produce a trend that is not particularly encouraging. If you put that together with the recruitment of teachers, there is a serious issue, and that is what we are driving at this afternoon. In particular, if I may say so, there was a very good call made from the Royal Society of Chemistry, exactly the same event that we were all at yesterday. Two years ago, they made that specific claim about having dedicated science teachers in primary schools. Personally, I think that that is one of the best suggestions that we can put forward, because I think that it is at the very age where we want to ensure that they are most inspired by... Sorry, I'll take the cabinet section. John Swinney Grateful to Les Smith, because I think that she knows that the seriousness with which I'm intent on addressing this issue, but Les Smith also has to complete some of her arguments. Les Smith comes to the chamber frequently and demands that the Government prioritises literacy and numeracy. In the curriculum guidance that I issued in August, that is precisely what I have done. Now, we have dedicated primary school teachers specialising in science. I simply say to Les Smith that there needs to be a rounded consistency in the arguments that she puts forward, because there is a logical inconsistency in demanding that we prioritise literacy and numeracy. You have also got to do that as well. It is a frequent point that I make to the Conservatives, who are not shy about coming forward with this argument, but they proliferate the demands that they put on us of issues that need to be concentrated on in the curriculum. I can allow you some extra time, Ms Smith. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, it's not an either or situation. The response that you gave to the Royal Society of Chemistry when you were asked that very question by a member of the audience yesterday about can you put the same priority on literacy and numeracy as you can in science, you were equivocal in your comments. This is something that we need to... Carry on. We have not got too much time, Mr Swinney. I will come back to address some issues. I wasn't equivocal at all. I made it quite clear that I was giving greater priority to literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing, and I couldn't do it to everything. If there is anything equivocal about my answer, I hope that I have said it more bluntly in Parliament today, but I simply point out the contradiction in the argument that Les Smith is making to me that we need to strengthen literacy and numeracy but also science as well. The broad general education has got to cover all those issues, but there has to be priority given to other factors. Les Smith. Cabinet Secretary, I'm not disagreeing with you about the literacy and numeracy aspect, but in terms of the commitment that you put out in 2012 about the importance of the life sciences and the STEM subjects for the national economy, never mind for education, that's not a contradiction, that's all part of what is good for education in Scotland just now. Anyway, can I progress on some other aspects of what I want to say? I don't actually mind staying on this point, because I have a huge number of emails that have come in since that event yesterday when we made the commitment again about primary school science teaching. I think that it is a fundamental core of the issue that we are having to address just now. Obviously, in terms of some of the colleges and universities, I think that they have done a lot of tremendously good work. The minister is absolutely correct when she says that there is some good work happening there, but nonetheless, this is something that we need to expand upon. If it's about ensuring that there is a wider aspect—and I think that Daniel Johnson asked you a little while ago—about the pathways into that profession, I think that we do need to have some answers about that. I think that it's vitally important that we know what the intention is. Again, I think that it's not a contradiction to ensure that you can have that highly professional teaching commitment at the same time as allowing other people who have an expertise and an enthusiasm to come and do some science teaching. If the Government is considering that, I'm pleased, but let's please have some detail about that, because I think that it's very important. Just in my final few seconds, can I just sum up from the fact that we have been here before. We've been here actually for a very long period of time. I've been very assiduous in going through a lot of the debates that we've had in this very chamber and, indeed, some of the other debates that we've had in learned societies and royal societies, and we're standing still. We're not moving forward. There's anything that I want to ask the Scottish Government to do this afternoon in conjunction with the other Opposition parties. Please put some priority on the teaching of science. I move the motion in my name. That's the amendment move to clarify for the official report. I now call Iain Gray to speak to and move amendment 2, amendment 2418.1.17 minutes, please, Mr Gray. I rise to move the amendment in my name and, indeed, to welcome the Government's strategy for education and training in STEM subjects. It would be childish not to, at least, welcome the fact that there is a strategy before us. That has to be a good thing, but we can't ignore the fact referred to by Liz Smith. We can't ignore the fact that it has been such a long time coming and that it is not, of course, actually here yet, since this week's document is a consultation on the strategy, which we're told is due in March next year. That is not to say that much work has not been done on the issue in the intervening years, most notably by the STEMIC committee, who published their own report a few weeks ago. Yesterday at the Science and the Parliament event, the cabinet secretary in his speech said that he hoped that members of STEMIC would recognise that the themes of their report are reflected in the Government document. I think that the members of that committee will indeed be able to recognise and be pleased to see their themes reflected in the Government document. However, I fear that they will be disappointed that it fails to reflect the clear practical recommendations that they have also made. In truth, it replaces too many of those recommendations with rather pious hopes, taking the example, again, of the shortage of teachers in STEM. I freely admit that teacher education institutions have increased their places for STEM teachers, but we know that they struggle to fill all of those places, particularly in some subjects such as physics and computer science. STEMIC makes suggestions to address the use of incentives, for example, which has been deployed elsewhere in the UK, but it is a suggestion that the Government has always resisted. The Government strategy itself says that it will improve the pipeline of STEM teachers into secondary schools, but it does not tell us how it will do that, with its only suggestion sounding rather like the suggestion of a dilution of professional standards. Perhaps it is not that, but the minister's explanation today did not leave us any the wiser. Or what about something like the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre, which STEMIC devotes a whole section to? That is an institution that has been driving innovation in science teaching since my days. As a science teacher, it is well-known, well-used and well-trusted by the profession. STEMIC recommends funding the expansion of that institution with its proven track record, but the Government strategy ignores CERC altogether. Or science in primary schools, as Smith spoke about. STEMIC makes clear proposals, raising the requirement for STEM qualification for new entrants in the primary teaching profession, specific support in STEM for new primary teachers in their first years in the profession. The Government document acknowledges that early years in primary school are crucial for STEM, but it has no new plan, no new action and no new funding to reflect the importance of it. Indeed, if there is one theme of the STEMIC report, which the Government document does not reflect, it is in action, that those recommendations were already made in the previous report by the SEA group in 2012, and largely in the excellence in science teaching report in 2011. They were even presaged most of them in 2003 in the Science Advisory Committee's report Why Science Education Matters. Many over the years have been made by bodies like the Royal Society of Edinburgh too. The report itself says, plus a chance, plus a lament chose. Nothing has changed 13 years on, and the Government is still consulting on what to do. Instead of getting on with doing what everyone is telling them, they must. Sandra White, the member for taking intervention, we are looking at innovative ways that the motion says, and I think that some of the amendments say it also. Do you not agree that places like the Glasgow Science Centre, which is married to the curriculum of excellence that brings science into primary schools, is a good way of embracing an innovative way of embracing young primary school kids and enjoying and learning about science as well? I agree. I absolutely do, but what Stemite would say is that the degree of confidence that primary teachers have to build on that kind of engagement is critical to improving science teaching in our primary schools. It is not an either or, it is about building on something which the Stemite report says should be supported. If there is one thing that characterises science, it is its empiricism. Any valid theory must be testable by reference to the real-world observations. To test my hypothesis that the Government has not done enough on Stemite, we should look at the data. The data tells us that we have lost 800 teachers and Stem subjects over the past 10 years. Lab assistants in schools are down by half since 2007, technicians down by a quarter, average annual spend on science in primary schools, per pupil £1.62, compared with £2.89 in England, £7.33 in a secondary school, compared with £10 in England—not my figures, the Royal Society of Edinburgh's figures. For years, we have told ministers that Stem subjects are being squeezed in the curriculum. Now we see that impact in higher pupils last year sitting over 4,000 fewer Stem highers. That is not a blip, minister. That is a trend that has been evident in S4 for some years now coming through into S5 and into S6. Science can never ignore the evidence, and that is why it is not enough to welcome the strategy or to consult seriously without acknowledging the decline in outcomes and the failure over years to deliver on recommendations from bodies such as Stemic. That is why we have tabled the amendment that we have. When Mr Swinney spoke to the Science and Parliament conference yesterday, I have to give him credit. He acknowledged of his own accord the fall in Stem teachers and the decline in Stem highers in the last year. If those statistics are inaccurate, the inaccuracy is shared by the cabinet secretary. That was commendable honesty on his part. I see no reason why the Government should not accept the amendments before them today. Although the cabinet secretary may have accepted yesterday the challenges of Stem education, the strategy does not rise to meet them. It is largely more of the same. Unless it returns next year with clear, practical and funded solutions, like those recommended by Stemic, then we risk a slow decline in Stem education over the next 10 years, as we have seen in the past 10 years. We now move to the open session of speeches of no more than five minutes, please, and I remind all members that they should speak through the chair and not directly to each other during debates. I call on Clare Ann Adamson to be followed by Ross Tromps. I declare an interest as a board member of the Scottish Schools Education Research Centre SERSC, which is highly commended by Iain Gray in his submission today. There has been a murder, a pure dead bad murder, and I think that I have got some attention. I think that that is exactly what the science departments, faculties and primary schools across Scotland have intrigued, inspired and entertained pupils by hosting CSI events in their curriculum, such as in my own area in 2003's and Aidan's primary. I had a forensic specialist visit the school with the pupils to crack a case—in this case, not a murder, but a chocolate heist from the staff room. During a six-week-long project, the children learned how to examine fingerprints, hair samples, digital microscopes, workfield and workfield signs. They had worked on hair fibre and powder analysis, finger printing and dental forensics, all to solve the crime of who had stolen the chocolates from the staff room. The head teacher said that this was an amazing experience for the young people. The children really enjoyed it. It was part of the computer explorers classes at that time, and they involved not just learning about science but learning about ICT and problem skills and working in a team and all those great experiences that we want for all our children in Scotland. I appreciate that there is a lack of confidence in some primary schools about tackling such issues and bringing such experiences to young people. I would like to commend the SSERC again in its broadcast seminars into schools, something that they call a cook-along, where they have an expert delivering a lesson, where the necessary equipment for the lesson is provided to the primary school and the teacher does that along with the expert allowing the pupils to get the advantage of an expert in the field and to build the confidence of the teacher in actually delivering science. However, I believe that one of the important things about the strategy will be inspiration. It is key to encouraging, motivating and inspiring our young people. A long time ago, and since we may well touch on multiverse theory this afternoon, perhaps even in a galaxy far, far away, my own inspiration came from watching old BBC broadcasts of David Attenborough and Horizon and the occasional OU broadcast late at night on the television and from reading science fiction. My hero, Richard Feynman, I learned about from his autobiography. Surely you are joking, Mr Feynman, the adrenters of a curious character, and it did make me curious about physics, about code-breaking, which led to my career in IT and curiosity itself. For the young people today, they can view every one of Mr Feynman's lectures online. I remember the first time I heard his voice at the time of the Challenger disaster, something that Heather Too had just been in my imagination as a young woman. I think that it is inspiring people like him who we have to reach our young people today. How do we inspire in this world overloaded with information and the world-wide web? How do we inspire our young people? Just this weekend, I had the pleasure of hosting in the Parliament a CERN TED Talk. It was delivered from CERN, who of course themselves are engaged in educational programmes, which many Scottish schools have added the ability to take part in over the years. The TED talk covered areas of oceanography, drone technology—I imagine that we could really play quidditch—dark matter, DNA editing, medical testing, biotechnology and neurons, literacy using subtitling of Bollywood movies and blockchains and artificial intelligence. It was quite an afternoon. I was delighted to be joined by some of my colleagues from the chamber, including Jenny Gilruth, who brought along her sister, who is a physics teacher and I am sure was very inspired by the event. Why is this so important? While there were two particular TED talks that I want to bring to the chamber's attention, Kate Stafford did one on oceanography, which was amazing, but we also had one on DIY science. This was a scientist who was involved in the oil disaster in the United States and founded not-for-profit organisation called Public Lab, which engages with community and helps design, do-it-yourself research tools for grassroots science. It is a real community that is getting a benefit of using scientists who know a lot about the area to come into the communities and do it, but the most important one is Sheila Rowan on gravity waves. Why is this important? What more to inspire our young people than our very own homegrown experts in the area, the director of the Institute of Gravitational Research at Glasgow? We should be using those examples to inspire our young women and STEM teaching in Scotland. I was loath to stop me giving that explanation. I do not know what blockchains are, but no doubt something in the debate will tell me. Ross Thompson to be followed by Jenny Gilruth. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I would like to declare an interest as a member of Aberdeen City Council. I am sure that all members across the chamber recognise the excellent reputation that Scotland has across the globe as a true leader in STEM subjects. Since the dawn of the Scottish Enlightenment, Scotland has demonstrated its dynamic entrepreneurial spirit. The Enlightenment met the industrial revolution, our combination of sheer intellectual endeavour and commercial might shaped a new world, a new economic outlook. Scotland cemented herself as the home of ideas. From the discovery of antibiotics and tropical medicine, to the invention of the steam engine in the television, it is from history that we recognise those great achievements in science. We must aim to channel the historic success into the promotion of important STEM education and training for future generations to come. Given our proud heritage, it is increasingly alarming that when it comes to the Government's record on STEM education and training, we have a legacy that is less than satisfactory. A significant failure of this Government is that all age cohorts and SCQF levels—the uptake of an attainment in STEM subjects by girls and women—is significantly lagging behind that of their male counterparts. Despite boys and girls having an equal interest in science and technology at a young age, that engagement in STEM declines as they progress through the education system. As such, it is boys who are more likely to proceed with subjects such as physics, chemistry, engineering and computing. Keir Bloomer, who is one of the architects of the curriculum for excellence, has warned that we need to do much more to improve basic skills. At secondary school, girls represent only 7 per cent of entries for higher technological studies and 20 per cent of entries for higher computing. Additionally, between 2011 and 2016, the number of female students taking higher biology fell by an astounding 21 per cent. From statistics such as those, it is obvious that not enough is being done by the Government to encourage girls to take up vitally important subjects, subjects that are increasingly becoming more attractive and sought after in a technologically advancing economy. To quote Equate Scotland, the possibilities in the industry are limitless, but for women the opportunities are limited. It is hard to believe, however, that such damning figures are unrelated to the number—yeah, I'll give way to the number. Stuart McMillan Thank you, Ross Thomson for taking the intervention. On his later point, he is regarding opportunities. Does Ross Thomson seriously say to the chamber that there have always been opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematical subjects and workplaces? That has always been the case over the generations. Ross Thomson There are opportunities and we need to do more. If you come along to the Equate Scotland reception, I know that there are going to be things in Parliament this week that we should be working together to ensure that we do attract more women and girls, not just to stem into apprenticeships and there is a whole culture change and image change that this Government and this Parliament needs to help to address. It is hard to believe, however, that such damning figures are unrelated to the critical shortage of qualified teachers in schools across Scotland, and therefore, before girls and women can overcome those limited opportunities, the Scottish Government must effectively address the challenge that we face in recruiting teachers. In my region of the north-east of Scotland, we are still facing a major teacher recruitment crisis, where there is a growing gap in secondary teachers of STEM subjects. Aberdeen City Council in particular has been very open about the problems that is faced in recruiting and retaining teachers, despite a range of initiatives, including cash incentives and offers of low-cost accommodation. Just last year, we asked for assistance in the shape of a waiting allowance to take into account the high cost of living and for a review of the funding settlement for local authorities. However, so far, that has been ignored, and therefore the chronic shortage of teachers means that we are now in danger of some schools having to close their doors altogether. We urgently need to look at the roots of this complex problem, with seven councils covering a geographical area from Shetland to Obann, coming together to say the same thing. It becomes a national issue that transcends party politics and one that we must work together to address. The north-east is desperately in need of the Government to come forward in order to help to provide meaningful support to help to address those problems, which are crippling our schools and doing our young people a disservice. For Scotland to flourish and to continue to lead the world in STEM, we need qualified teachers in our classrooms, which is why I will be supporting the amendment in the name of Liz Smith and I would urge members across the chamber to do the very same. Thank you very much, Mr Thomson. Jenny Gilruth will be followed by Mark Griffin. Today's motion commends the Government's STEM education and training strategy to Parliament. It is clear that there is a link between the Government's aspirations to close the attainment gap and to upskill the next generation in those subject areas. Science, technologies, engineering and maths—especially for Scotland's girls. Yesterday, we saw Donald Trump become president-elect of the most powerful economy in the world. In Hillary Clinton's concession speech, she commented, to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams. I note the amendment in the name of the Labour Party, which comments on the decrease in pupils taking STEM subjects. Nonetheless, since 2007, the total number of pupils has nearly decreased by 30,000 in total across Scotland's high schools, so there is an overall trend in terms of our pupil population declining. However, 88 million pounds of Scottish Government funding is being spent this year alone to support the Government's commitment to maintain teacher numbers and redress this balance. For too long, however, subject choice in our secondary schools has been gendered. A survey recently conducted by Equate Scotland found that more than 70 per cent of girls, women, teachers and employers want regular talks in Scottish schools promoting STEM subjects to girls. I am delighted that Equate Scotland's report has been backed by the First Minister. The First Minister has put on record her commitment to work in partnership to address the underrepresentation of women in STEM courses and careers, like physics. Indeed, my youngest sister, who Claire Ardinson has thankfully already mentioned today, and who rejoices every time I mention her in a parliamentary speech, was the only girl in her higher and advanced higher physics class at school. Despite the gender segregation that she experienced at school, she is now a physics teacher in the First Minister's constituency. The STEM consultation commits the Government to work with schools and employers to prevent bias on career choice and encourage more diverse subject choices in order to meet the participation improvement targets. Between 2007 and 2016, the number of entries by girls to the main science higher qualifications, including computing, increased by 3 per cent. The number of passes for girls in higher chemistry and physics is up 8 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively. Passes by girls in biology are down 16.9 per cent. However, that is in the context of a 62 per cent increase in passes in human biology for girls. From a personal perspective, as a former secondary teacher, I would say that the delivery of human biology is quite differential across the country, so schools perhaps need to look at their courses and look at the uptake in terms of what they deliver, because I know that a lot of girls quite often prefer to specialise in human biology as opposed to biology itself. When I was at school, I studied chemistry and physics at standard grade. Chemistry will forever be to me a world of moles and atoms, somewhere where I could just see no logic. However, physics I loved. I loved physics because I had a great teacher, Mr Pearce. Mr Pearce was a great teacher because he took time to explain things. We measured velocity in class. I pinched my little sister's duplo truck and watched it roll down a plank onto our wooden science benches. We measured the distance, the time, the speed. I remember using the same equation in maths and suddenly understanding the links between physics and maths, like a light bulb in my head. You will know that this Government is committed to closing the attainment gap between Scotland's poorest and richest pupils. To do that, we need to raise ambition in the next generation, and increasing uptick, therefore, in those subjects, will be vital. I recently visited the new Levenmouth campus of Fife College, which has been supported by over £25 million of Scottish Government funding. Fife College's STEM strategy is focused on reducing inequalities, on reducing low-income households and on raising educational attainment while reducing educational inequality. I spoke with one of the tutors at the college about the gender makeup of his engineering classes. He told me that when the college gets the girls in the front door, they are not just good, they are brilliant. He agreed with me that the issue was not the quality of female students who did present for engineering courses, rather it was about building their confidence in school to believe and realise their capabilities in engineering. Traditional, stereotypical notions of what constitutes an engineer persist. The STEM consultation framework, however, explicitly seeks to take action to reduce equity gaps, particularly in relation to deprivation and to gender. The Scottish Government's STEM strategy is ambitious for Scotland's future and it seeks to redress that gender imbalance and subject choice and to build confidence in the next generation that STEM subjects are those that everyone can enjoy, regardless of gender. Yesterday, many of us in this chamber were devastated that Hillary Clinton did not manage to smash one of the largest glass dealings in elected politics. However, the Scottish Government's STEM strategy sets out a route map for Scotland's girls to become future lead learners themselves in science, engineering, technology and math. That should be something that everyone in this chamber should support. Presiding Officer, we have heard a lot about the provision of STEM education in schools this afternoon, but a key point is the expectation that, by 2030, over 7 million jobs in the UK will depend on science skills. Those science roles are exactly what we need—high quality, high skilled and highly paid jobs, which other emerging economies will struggle to compete with us for. By 2030, the four and five-year-olds who started primary school this summer will be in work or possibly at university. If current spending levels continue, the same pupils with the same academic ability, the same aptitude for science in England will have enjoyed over 10 years of state education with 80 per cent more in primary school and 27 per cent more in secondary school being spent on science equipment, and that is according to a report published by the Learned Societies group. There is also the issue of science technicians and support staff. Last year, I submitted an FY request to all 32 local authorities on science technician numbers. There had been an overall drop in the number of science technicians with one authority cutting technician staff by more than 50 per cent. Those staff maintain or repair what practical science equipment or skills have. They are the people who are setting up the science labs and the complex experiments that teaching staff do not have the time for. It is hard to see those numbers increase as budget cuts to local authorities continue to bite. If the Scottish Government talks about inspiration as one of the four key priorities for action, I suggest that the best way to inspire young people to pursue a career in STEM is through the teaching of practical science. For example, the minister gave her the skills she visited and the work that the pupils were doing is a perfect example. To do that, we have to address the imbalance between what is spent on equipment, practical science equipment and staff in the rest of the UK compared to Scotland. It would also go some way to addressing another of the Government's key priority action areas on inequality. That same report from the Learned Societies group also reported that 98 per cent of Scottish schools are dependent on external funding for science equipment. We are in a situation in this country where middle-class communities have the ability to support activities in schools that will improve the life chances of the pupils there to a level that deprived communities would struggle to match. The Scottish Government should aim to level that playing field for all schools by supporting increased funding for science equipment. Can I just make the point that you raised some very interesting points about lab technicians and equipment, which is obviously a matter for local authorities? However, the school that I went to did not need expensive equipment. The klydyscopes were made from Pringle tubes. Other tubes are available if people want to make other klydyscopes, but the point is that they are made because of innovative teaching, and that is what I said in my speech that we are supporting through SIRIC and through other. It is about innovative and experimental teaching and using everyday objects to explore science in the real world. Yes, expenditure is one item, but we are investing in the teachers for everyone to be able to do that.  I take the point that teachers can employ an effort of measures, but for complex science equipment we will need a bit more than a Pringles tube. There are examples where that can be used, but there is such a big disparity. 80 per cent more spent in England than there is in Scotland in practical science equipment will have an impact on pupils in Scotland. However, I also spoke about inequality. I have mentioned in the chamber that I studied mechanical engineering at university. One of the key sources are skills and graduates for a lot of the sectors that are growing in Scotland. It provides fantastic opportunities for highly skilled, highly paid work. There were 120 students on my course and 124 in that course were women. That is even before you look at the issue of female STEM graduates leaving the profession and going on to employment in other fields. I think that how the Government opens up careers in science technology to half the population will determine how successful they are at tackling the issue of inequality within STEM. We have heard from other speakers mentioning Equate Scotland. They have made recommendations on tackling the problem around recruiting more female STEM teachers, so there is no visible gender difference. Making sure that guidance teachers and school careers advisors are trained in guiding students to embrace what they are good at, not encouraging or discouraging a subject due to their sex. There is work done to stop the bias in guidance in schools where girls are guided towards biology. It is interesting to hear the Government's response to those Equate Scotland's suggestions. I see that I am running out of time. Clearly, there are big challenges with fallen teacher numbers, fallen science support staff, shortfalls and funding for equipment. However, there is a big prize at the end of the day. There are seven million highly-paid science jobs that we cannot aim for and that we cannot achieve. Thank you very much. You asked about blockchain. It would take rather longer than five minutes, but I will just say that the one commercial product that you might be familiar with that uses the technology is the electronic currency called bitcoin, which depends on blockchain. I leave that with you for later. Ross Thompson said that the Scots invented the steam engine, probably not. He was a guy called Hiro, a Greek philosopher and thinker who invented the steam turbine in 100 AD. It is thought that he was only building on the ideas that were 200 years before that. We Scots invented most things, but we can concede one or two others. Richard Feynman is being mentioned. He is a terrific communicator and teacher who, as a member of the Challenger Space Surgical Commission, looked into the disaster. He was gagged, not allowed to speak, and at the press conference he was able to show what had happened without saying a single word. I have said it before and I will go and read some of my old speeches. The key thing that I want to pick up briefly is the role of gender. When I started in computers in the 1960s, the interesting thing was that about 50 per cent of those who worked in programming at that time were female. The reason was that working in computers was an unknown profession. It was not sexy, it was not what was drawing people to things. Furthermore, the great heroes of computing are largely female. Ada Lovelace, who was the only legitimate child of Lord Byron, was charged by Babbage's computer programmer with the analytical machine, which was a mechanical computer. However, she developed the first algorithm, recognising the way that we develop computer programs today. Rear Admiral Grace Hopper was the person who created the way that we now develop computer programs, particularly using the language cobalt, and she is responsible for the term computer bug. When a bug—American word for a moth got trapped in the electromechanical contacts of a computer run—if you go to the Smithsonian, you can actually see the bug that was cellotaped in the lab page in 1944 by Grace Hopper. Sex and the differentiation between male and female engagement in computing is a comparatively modern thing, and I have no explanation for why that has actually happened. What I want to talk about, Presiding Officer, is education, but not in the way that it has been talked about now. I, for my part, am a noted did act. That means that the gaps in my knowledge are entirely my own fault—nobody else's. I did have inspirational teachers—Doc Ingos, who was a bluff, Langcastrian in the first-year class at school, took us round the school, searching for infinity. We looked in the dustpins, we looked behind the backboards, but the point is that I remember it to this day. That is what inspiring teachers do. In sixth year, he came and did his tax return with us. I have the to show us what little amount of money he got paid for putting up with us, or to show us that there was a practical application for being numerate. People say that they are uncomfortable in numbers. Whenever people say that to them, they say, do you think that they could give me an 11-digit number and say, oh no, certainly not. Here is the number. Does it mean anything to<PHONE_NUMBER>0? People in this place, hopefully, say, oh yes, I know that is the Parliament, which is more than the Parliament. Everybody has a new ability to engage with numbers, but it is subconscious and they do not realise it. The key thing that we are perhaps omitting in the strategy is that parents and families are able to create a number-friendly environment at the very outset of children's lives. That makes a difference to the attitudes that they will have at a later stage in their life. There are games that we can play with science, my four-year-old goddaughter. We dissolved salt crystals because she had seen a rock crystal and she said, what is a crystal? I said, well, here is a crystal. We dissolved it in water, then we put it in a pan, boiled it off and got the salt back. She went away and briefed her nursery class about this piece of science. When she next comes to see me, we are going to do a couple of things. We are going to use a mixture of almond vinegar to write a message on the white of a hard-boiled egg through the shell. You only can read the message when you peel the shell off, and we will discuss why that matters. Of course, because young children are always somewhat scatological, we will use human urine to write on a piece of paper a message. It disappears and then reappears when you heat the bit of paper so that you can see the message. There are lots of things that we can engage kids with that will make a real difference to their attitude, to numbers, to science, equip them with a questioning mind. At the end of the day, I am no bothered about what knowledge anybody has. If you have a questioning mind, you are going to get the knowledge for yourself, the knowledge that matters to you, and that is ultimately what will make you successful in life. All that business about supporting the economy and so on entirely secondary, I want to see successful, happy and engage people in STEM subjects. I think that if we individually, as parents and families, help will make substantial progress, and I hope that that is ultimately reflected in the strategy that we end up with. I was loath to stop you, Mr Stevenson, in your journey through quaint scientific experiments. I will need to read your speech later. Tavish Scott followed by Stuart McMillan. Mr Scott followed that. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It is always a great pleasure to follow, Mr Stevenson. I heard him earlier in his earlier remarks saying that he goes back and reads his old speeches. That speech will be worthy of reading many times from many different perspectives, and there were so many references to so many different things in it that I am just not going to mention them. Instead, because I would be defeated by them all, I thought I would start by some evidence that was given to the education committee in Parliament yesterday when we were considering the future of skills development Scotland as part of the budget considerations. In their evidence, the CBI said in relation to STEM, in the relation to teaching science, technology, engineering and mathematics, that most young people attribute their decision to pursuing the subjects to an inspirational teacher. That does appear to me to be a good place to start in this subject. It is why the CBI and indeed others—there was much mention of Sir Ian Wood's work in this broad area—indeed others see their role in providing that assistance. I have to confess that I think that it is not just about inspirational teachers, and there has been much statistical analysis of the number of teachers. However, it is also about who your parents are and what your parents do as well. I know plenty of young men of my son's age at home in Shetland who are engineers because Dad is either in an engineering business or works in the oil industry or has had that influence on those lives. There is a role, yes, of course, for schools and for teachers and for all that they can be in encouraging the next generation, both as Alison Johnson rightly mentioned, girls as well as boys, because the statistics, certainly on girls being science professionals or IT professionals or indeed engineers, are pretty woeful at the moment. On that, it is also about how many are influenced by the family around them. There appears to me some very strong work done that illustrates that the sooner and the earlier in school the teaching of science can happen, the better. I take the cabinet secretary's point in terms of the pressures in primary schools. It was not that long ago that we were being told as parents and, indeed, the profession that two languages at primary school level were the overriding priority. I went to my primary school son's parents' night the other night and in the 10-minute slot that I and his mum got to consider how his schooling was going, we had nine minutes on numeracy and literacy, and that was it until I asked, how is he actually doing? I have concerns as a parent, I must confess, about a complete push on just two areas, which, yes, are of course important, but we also need to remember at primary school, it is also about kids just growing up and becoming little social characters that are in their own right. Therefore, I do take the wider point that the cabinet secretary has been making, and indeed others have implicitly recognised this about the pressures that were already putting primary school teachers under and how science, admirable as the teaching of science at an early enough level, can be fit into that. Also, I do not think that we can have this debate without being in some ways vaguely consistent about the concerns that we have all expressed about the workload on teachers, both at primary and secondary school level. I was quizzing the cabinet secretary, I do not think that he was wholly thanking me for this the other day, but quizzing him on the benchmarks that the Government has just issued across the network, sorry, across schools, both at primary and secondary level. My observation, and it has been given to me by many teaching professionals, is that Education Scotland would need to reduce the ease and oes at the same time as introducing the benchmarks. In other words, could there be some reduction in teacher workload and paperwork, as well as the benchmarks that I have also been told, are sensible and a constructive way forward. If we load science on to all of that as well, I think that we do at least need to recognise the impact that does have both on primary and secondary schools. In that, on secondary schools, I just want to make two points. The first is, again, I cannot be the only parent who knows that his son cannot do three science subjects at fifth year. The school timetable now, under curriculum for excellence, certainly in more schools that I have been made aware of, just does not facilitate that because of the narrowing of choice that we have had. Again, I do not think that we can see these issues in isolation. I think that we at least need to be alive to the fact that, while we aspire through the strategy that I welcome to, as Ian Gray rightly mentioned, while we aspire to encourage more to undertake STEM subjects, at the same time with the reality of curriculum for excellence is that we are reducing the ability of schools to provide that choice and to provide certainly three sciences in the way in which, dare I say it many moons ago when I went to school, not that I did three sciences, you could certainly do. Let me just finish, Presiding Officer, with the observation that others have made about the cabinet secretary's remarks yesterday. I thought that he was commendably fair about the challenges that Ian Gray rightly mentioned. I think that all the Oppositions doing today is saying that these challenges have been around some time. We have all been in this Parliament for some considerable period of time. As Liz Smith said, those are challenges that we want the strategy to deliver on. I think that Parliament is just encouraging the Government to do that today. I have no spare time now, so it is a tight five minutes for the speakers from now on. Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Jamie Greene. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Certainly, it has been an interesting and informative debate. I always enjoy the contributions from my colleague Stuart Stevenson, because I know that I will always learn at least one or two things. However, there are two points that I just want to touch upon, certainly from Stuart Stevenson's contribution to Ross Thomson's. Certainly, in terms of Ross Thomson, when he spoke about the opportunities, I want to gently make Ross Thomson aware that, certainly within the heavy engineering sector and also shipbuilding, in the past four years, Ferguson shipbuilders in Port Glasgow hired its first-ever female technical apprentice. Think about that. It took up to the last four years before the first-ever shipbuilding technical apprentice took place in a shipyard on the Clyde. There have not always been opportunities for females in terms of science, technology, engineering and mathematical areas. The same point goes to my colleague Stuart Stevenson. Mr Stevenson highlighted the computing sector with 50 per cent in the past, but the shipbuilding and heavy engineering certainly of those opportunities were not always there. However, I do welcome the STEM consultation and also the four key priorities of excellence, equality, inspiration and also connection. As we have already heard today, progress has been made but there is still more to do. You can say that with every single walk of life. There is always still more that people can do. There has been the 3 per cent increase in girls entering science qualifications, including computing since 2007. Girls passing higher chemistry and higher physics are up by 8 per cent and 10 per cent respectively. There is a 62 per cent increase in passes in human biology by girls, which helps to explain the 16.9 per cent decrease in biology, but, in 2014-15, there were 27 per cent more female full-time equivalent science and math students and 55 per cent more full-time equivalent engineering students in colleges compared to 2006-07. Those figures are positive and certainly should be welcomed by all, but, as I have stated, we can always do more. The increases in college students is something that I believe to be hugely important. On Monday, I attended the local Inverclyde Alliance community planning partnership meeting and we heard a hugely informative presentation from the principal of West College Scotland, Audrey Cumberford. Part of the presentation is centred around the college's refocused drive regarding STEM subjects. There is an increase in demand at local level for people with STEM qualifications, and Ferguson Marine and Port Glasgow have taken on an ambitious and welcome apprenticeship programme. They have a link with the college to help to deliver that, and there are now more female apprentices as a result of that. In order to satisfy our economic challenges, the consultation is welcome, but I also believe that every MSP has a role to play. If not already doing so, we should be promoting STEM subjects when we talk to constituents, whether they are young or older. I urge all members to promote the consultation. I have written to every school in my constituency to make them aware of the consultation, and I have asked the head teachers to pass information on to students, teachers and parents. I want to touch on one other point, and that was raised during today's First Minister's questions. Murdo Fraser uttered the phrase of Scottish shambles. Notwithstanding the downplaying and talking down of our nation, I am sure that members and, hopefully, Mr Fraser included, will agree with me that the many examples of shamblet projects taking place elsewhere—I will explain why I am touching on that. Hinkley point C, the initial cost estimate was £14 billion. It is now up to £37 billion. HS2, the continual increase in cost, is now up to some £55.7 billion. The cost per kilometre is 10 times the price more as compared to other global counterparts. The continual increase in price is now up to some £205 billion lifetime costs. The refurbishment of the Westminster Parliament delayed the estimate, which costs between £4.3 billion, but higher figures have been highlighted by others. I raise those points to highlight two issues. First of all, as well as stem challenges to deal with the huge projects, I encourage the UK Government to get some accountants involved to limit the exorbitant increases if those projects do go ahead. Before Mr Fraser talks down Scotland, he should consider the actions and the mathematical illiteracy of his colleagues and his political masters in London. First of all, I thank Jenny Gilruth for putting some doubts in my head. Those doubts are whether D equals S over T or T equals D over S. I always got that triangle wrong at school, but I will go away and research it after this. The debate is quite important today. I think that there have been some interesting contributions from across the chamber. Scotland is a nation that encompasses a strong global reputation for its excellence in stem subjects. I think that it is through the talent and entrepreneurial spirit of Scottish people that we have built the great nation that we are today. The importance of stem subjects is that those subjects cover such a far-reaching spectrum of industries and job opportunities, which I think are so crucial to the future success of the Scottish economy. As our economy modernises, it is our duty to ensure that the Scots of tomorrow are given the opportunity to play their part in that economy. I would like to take one example that is close to my heart. It is the digital economy. In that sector, there is huge growth, but with that growth comes a huge demand for programmers, engineers and software developers to keep up with that demand. We know that every year there are 11,000 digital vacancies in Scotland, but we are only ever able to fill around half of those. If we are struggling to meet the industry's demands of today, it is going to be even more challenging, surely, to keep up with the demands of tomorrow. Therefore, the need to train people to keep up with tomorrow's demands is never more paramount. That is a problem not just in the digital industry. I think that we are seeing a worrying trend that exposes how under-prepared our workforce is to adapt two changes in the market in the future. An example being in a recent survey by Pearson and the CBI underlined that Scotland is simply not producing enough STEM graduates to keep up with the demands of the modern Scottish market. A separate survey by the CBI found that 42 per cent of STEM recruits are falling short in their employer's expectations of skills. I think that Stuart McMillan made some valid points. One of the points being that it is our duty to be ambassadors for the subject matter. I was interested to hear experiences from members on what inspired them in sciences. I think that we all have a personal story that we have of something that we saw on television or something that we did at school or someone who nurtured us in our interest in the sciences or technology. I think that that is a really important point in that we can talk about statistics and rises and falls and trends but actually it is about inspiring young people to get involved in sciences and I think whilst the consultation mentions some great projects I think that there is still much more we could do as MSPs. Analysis in the US for example shows that 40 per cent of American STEM graduates do not actually work in a direct field that is related to what they studied. In other words, graduating from a STEM field, I think, offers graduates much greater flexibility in their career choices. This debate is important in Scotland because we know that physics-based sectors account for over £12.5 billion of the Scottish economic output. We estimate more than 180,000 people are directly employed in these sectors and many sectors that the Scottish economy is so reliant on for its future success, such as oil and gas, agriculture, energy and renewables, is so reliant on STEM graduates. It was only last week that I stood in this very spot and talked about digital participation but with only 17 percent of Scottish schools lack a specialist IT teacher so how can we expect our young to succeed in the digital world of tomorrow if we are not providing them enough teachers today? It is even more worrying, as other members have alluded to, that there is a disparity in female students in those subjects. Less than a third of physics higher students are women and skills development Scotland itself points out that only 13 per cent of STEM jobs are occupied by females. In my own region, it is great to see that Ayrshire College has recognised the problem and, in response, has put together some very specific programmes to address it. The Ayrshire girl can is, I hope, very successful but I would like that to be the Scottish girl can. I would like to see that extended. In closing, my colleague Liz Smith rightly pointed out, as did Tavish Scott, that this debate has happened before. There is a bit of groundhog in this chamber today. I think that the Government's agenda has been complacent to date and I hope that the Scottish Government listens intently to what has been said across this chamber from all parties and puts more immediate focus on STEM. Thank you, Mr Greene. On the issue of the groundhog, how far did it travel D equals S times T? I thought that I would put you out of your misery. Can I call Willie Coffey to be followed by Sandra White? Mr Coffey, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. Those were the words of astronomer Professor Carl Sagan, who inspired a generation young and old to love science and all that it could do for mankind. A brilliant communicator who was behind the pioneer plaque and golden record in the Voyager project in 1977, which took the first messages from Earth into space. Since he died in 1998, some pretty incredible things are now known. We know the universe is accelerating as it expands when we thought it was slowing down. We know something about dark energy and dark matter and how they make that happen. We have discovered the Higgs boson particle that is thought to be responsible for all the mass in the universe. Traces of water have been found in the moon and in Mars. Only this year, a potentially habitable planet has been discovered about four light years away from Earth. Today, we have Professor Brian Cox, a truly inspiring physicist whose fantastic TV programmes are capturing the minds of countless numbers of youngsters today to be hooked on science. Presiding Officer, inspiring our young people is the key that opens the door to more incredible discoveries and underpins the success of the strategies and systems that we put in place to enable it all to happen. The STEM strategy that has just been published for consultation builds on achievements to date, gathers much of the work that is already under way together in one place and seeks views on how we might solve the many issues that we still face and have been recognised by members in the chamber. It talks about enthusing and inspiring our young people, asking them what they think, offering more training and skills, reaching out to females and making those vital connections with colleges, universities and employers that can be the basis for a wonderful career in STEM. All positive and with an emphasis on how we might overcome some of those problems that we face. Money, of course, helps and I'm pleased to see substantial investments being made to upskill primary and secondary science teachers and technicians, local authority champions and practical support too for science teachers. On top of that, a further significant investment of £12 million has been targeted at retraining some of our oil and gas workers to become STEM teachers. I particularly like the digital schools programme idea to try out digital skills development in schools and I commend East Ayrshire Council's initiative that has made iPads available to every pupil and teacher in a number of schools to help encourage learning no matter where the pupils may be. For me, a crucial intervention that must take place is to try and retain the enthusiasm that primary school children have for science but all too often they lose as soon as they get to secondary school and particularly girls. To complement our strategy, there are a number of ideas that I'd like to suggest that we consider further. Perhaps we should establish more school science clubs and have young scientists of the year awards, with prizes in recognition, events that overlap with late primary and the early secondary years. Perhaps we should encourage science lectures in our primary and secondary schools with practice and scientists telling our young people about their work using demonstrations in multimedia. Could we also have national science recognition and achievement awards in Scotland, similar to the scheme that President Obama introduced in 2008, just after he was first elected and which will hopefully not be abolished by President Trump? Could we identify youngsters with particular aptitudes in science and see how we can nurture that so that they don't disconnect from it as they move to secondary school? We could also, I think, do with more dedicated science TV channels that are broadcasting at the right times of the day and aimed at youngsters and adults too. I hope that some of those ideas might be taken up or see the light of day if we are to make Scotland a special place for science and technology. Scotland has a wonderful history of achievement in science that we should all be proud of. Those strategies and systems that we devise certainly need to be correct, but they will only work if we enthuse and excite the next generation of young scientists here to make those incredible discoveries that are unknown to us at this moment. I am absolutely certain that we have the youngsters in Scotland right now who will make those incredible discoveries if we excite them enough about science and make it possible to achieve great things. Somewhere in Scotland, something incredible is waiting to be known by our young scientists to be, so let's back the strategy. Excite and encourage our youngsters to embrace science and watch the next generation of incredible discoveries unfolding here in Scotland. Thank you, Mr Coffey. Call Sander White, who is the last speaker in the open debate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It certainly has some very interesting and knowledgeable speeches, certainly more knowledgeable than I could ever give, and I don't just mean Mr Stevenson in certain other ones as well. I do very much welcome, given the opportunity to discuss what I feel is very important in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, particularly today as we celebrate world science day. Scotland has a very strong reputation in the subjects that I have just mentioned, but we must continue to build on that reputation that we have. We must have a strong foundation in place for those who want to follow a career in STEM, and I think that we are going forward in the right way about it. I just want to highlight a number of organisations that I have had here in the Parliament and have visited as well in regard to how they have enthused me and others into how science, particularly mathematics and all the other issues that we raised today, can be career-wise, but it can be really exciting in that respect. The three organisations that I want to mention are Femen Rwanda, Glasgow Science Centre and Kidney Research UK. Those are all organisations that I have hosted in the Parliament and had events in the Parliament, and last night I hosted Kidney Research UK, which pioneered reno research. 9.5 million pounds come to Scotland through that research, and throughout all the contributions, the one thing that they all said was that the reason that the investment was being in Scotland was because Scotland had excellent universities, indeed it had excellent scientists and research facilities as well. Indeed, the actual report mentions the representation of Scotland's scientists, clinicians and kidney patients has been vital to two of the biggest research UK initiatives. I think that that tells you something about just how well Scotland does in that particular field. The Femen one that I was talking about was a student network that was established in 2013 by Ellen Simmons, a biomedical engineering student at the University of Glasgow, and Femen students have been running programmes and activities and workshops to take them out to schools promoting science and engineering. That is what I was trying to say. It is perhaps a new revolutionary way of doing it, but it is something that the young people are very interested in. They went over to Rwanda and put forward an innovative scientific programme with Femen students from Rwanda, and that was led by Glasgow University engineering and science students. Absolutely fantastic. 500 Rwandan school girls were actually team members, and that encouraged them to take up further subjects in science and engineering. That is something that has been led by Glasgow University and engineering students also. It is really a unique and progressive way of learning, and it involved everyone—groups of young women in Rwanda and also the students from Glasgow University—in giving them the opportunities that science can offer. I hope that that will be able to continue. Some members may have seen the bodyworks on tour project, which was here in the Parliament, created by Glasgow Science Centre. That was just this week as well, and it was on display in the Parliament. It was full of interactive and, most importantly, educational workstations, which has been touring schools throughout the country. It really inspired children and kids to be interactive with the exhibits that were there, and it actually taught them about their health, their body, their wellbeing, and it took science out into the masses of school children from primary school onwards. I thoroughly enjoyed it, I must admit, and it certainly gave me another insight into how mathematics, stem cells, et cetera, et cetera, all went together. It was absolutely amazing. Glasgow Science Centre has embraced the challenge of getting our kids excited and interested in science within extensive, as I said to Iain Gray, an extensive education programme that is linked to the curriculum of excellence, as well as a large collection of resources for teachers to access and use in the classrooms. That is something that we should be aspiring to all over, and I really congratulate the Science Centre in Glasgow for doing that. Just this week to mark word science centre day, school children attended the centre and they planted a tree using the pips from an apple tree, which obviously inspires Isaac Newton's threes about gravity, and the science centre presented in such a way that young kids absolutely thoroughly enjoyed it, and that's when we've got to go forward. I remember the last couple of seconds. I just want to say that the projects that I've mentioned, I think, encapsulates the key priorities mentioned in the motion from the Scottish Government, excellence, equality, inspiration and connection, and I really do look forward to further projects coming forward from there. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Ms White. I'll call Daniel Johnson to close for labour. Mr Johnson, five minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We've had much discussion in this Parliament about STEM and, with good reason, science, technology, engineering and maths are the foundations of our future country and the future economy. We've had discussions about enterprise agencies, innovation and modern apprenticeships, and if we were to embrace the changes that our economy is facing, STEM is critical. Indeed, I think that both Mark Griffin and Jamie Greene have done a very good job this afternoon laying the context of that. Mark Griffin outlined that, by 2030, there will be 7 million jobs in the UK that depend on science, and, likewise, Jamie Greene did an excellent job highlighting both the opportunities and the challenges that the digital economy brings. However, as much as STEM is important for new jobs, it is also important for doing old jobs in new ways. As much as we will have geneticists using robots in order to carry out their genetics works, we'll also, if you talk to builders, that they're only too aware that technology is coming their way too, that 3D printing technologies offsite prefabrication. Every single one of our jobs will be touched by technology from doctors to teachers to shopkeepers to civil servants, chefs, maybe even politicians. We will all need to understand how to use science and technology to do our daily jobs. As we look at this debate, it is very important if we are going to embrace these changes, that we have to understand the status quo. We have to understand where we are so that we can make a plan. Now, I know that the minister was a little unwilling to go straight into that, so let me talk about experience. An experience of a physics teacher from my constituency came to me to talk about the challenge of teaching national 4 and national 5 together. Both parts of both of those curriculums is the teaching of waves, but the problem is that you have to teach in a single class the concept of sound waves for national 4, along with electromagnetic waves for national 5. That simply is deeply challenging, meaning that either one of those is going to be done in an unsatisfying way. Further to that, she was saying that their resource budget is stretched by buying new stop clocks for the labs. You might be able to teach English with tattoo books, but science needs resources. As Mark Griffin pointed out again, the resourcing in Scotland is just lag behind that of the rest of the UK, with £7.33 being spent per pupil in Scotland compared to £10.12 in England. I almost wanted to laugh when Shirley-Anne Somerville brought up Pringles tubes as a serious alternative to spending in classrooms, but, frankly, science needs resource. It needs support. When you couple suggestions of that with the fact that we are losing two science teachers per week since 2007 in Scotland, that our technicians have been cut by a quarter, that lab assistants have been cut by half by 2007, you understand that the very serious situation that we face in our science laboratories in our schools is that we need support, we need resource and we need a curriculum that works. I agree with the Scottish Government with much of what it says in the strategy. A strategy is important, it is urgent, but the reality is that the question is, what are they doing? We need more teachers, but all that we have in the strategy is discussion of a pipeline.  You talk about a pipeline when you don't want to talk about the complexities of the challenges of what you have to deliver. Simply talking about the pipeline, I imagine that it is as simple as bolting something together and turning on tap, is not good enough. The reality is that we only have a trickle of teachers coming through. We are barely replacing teachers exiting the profession. So what we need is a strategy, but what we have is a consultation. I think that Ian Gray was right to point out that a strategy needs resources behind it, and we need a plan with a specific timetable, because there is urgency. Again, I think that Smith was absolutely right to point out that this is not a new set of challenges. This is not a new Government, this is a Government that has 10 years to deal with these issues. Again, time after time in this partnership, we have consultation after consultation, but these challenges are not new. We need action now. Indeed, I think that the paucity of this plan comes under real scrutiny when you look at gender. Jenny Gilruth and Ross Thompson were absolutely right to raise the challenges of gender, but in this plan, all we have is essentially a cut of warm words for what is already happening, vague promises of funding for external organisations and support for already existing work. It is quite simply, it is not good enough, it does not deal with the underlying challenges or the underlying issues that need to be dealt with. It is a good place to stop, no? You must conclude. You have done your five minutes, thank you very much. You have seven minutes, Mr Mountain, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I was rather nervous when I was asked to speak in this debate this afternoon, remembering what I was always told at school that I could have done better, but it appears that I am in good company this afternoon and we could all do better. We have heard in today's debate that there is agreement across the chamber that STEM subjects provide a broad spectrum of valuable and versatile skills from analysing to problem-solving. Those skills are vitally important as pupils not only progress through school, further education, higher education, apprenticeships and then on to their chosen careers. What we have heard is also that one of the serious issues that we need to address and should cause us all concern is the low level of representation of girls taking up STEM subjects at secondary school. Consequently, the full and the number of girls in STEM subjects at higher level. High level maths down by 2% in physics down by 7% and in biology down by 21%. Not enough is being done across the chamber to encourage girls to take up vitally important subjects, subjects that are becoming increasingly attractive and sought after in this technologically advancing economy. The Government cannot claim that they have progressed this if they accept, as the figures show, that STEM teacher numbers have fallen. As my colleague Liz Smith and indeed Daniel Johnson have said in their speeches, there is a major problem with recruitment of teachers. Since 2007, we have seen more than 100 STEM teachers cut every single year. That is 410 fewer maths teachers, 187 fewer computing teachers, 105 fewer chemistry teachers. We need these teachers to be replaced and I agree with Tavish Scott and, indeed, with Stuart Stevenson that these teachers need to be inspirational to encourage people into the subjects. If the Government is going to seize on these opportunities and the possibilities that STEM subjects can offer, surely they will accept that a strong foundation can only be built on if the numbers of teachers are present. Ross Thompson, in a nutshell, made it clear that if we do not encourage girls to have an active interest in STEM subjects at a young age, and by that primary school age, there is less chance of encouraging those girls to have an interest in STEM subjects at further and higher education. When I was looking at the figures, it appeared that female students who graduate in STEM subjects, 73 per cent, do not go on to a STEM occupation. That is quite frankly not good enough. Surely we must all accept that huge improvements need to be made there. It also falls on the Government who rightly, in my mind, champion gender equality to accept that they need to work on that, and that in the past few years, in fact the last seven years, they failed to do so. Can I turn to the role that the UK businesses can play in relation to STEM? As Jamie Greene mentioned in his speech about apprenticeships, I think that we need to do more work here. The UK Government has announced in 2015 that they were introducing an apprenticeship levy. That could possibly fund up to 3 million apprenticeships. I believe that we need to ensure that some of those apprenticeships are STEM apprenticeships so that we can encourage people into that area. I do not have sufficient time to go into major detail on examples of those, but I am going to give you two examples that I believe do work. That is Tech Future for Girls by Hewitt Packard Enterprise and Apps for Good, really good examples of industries that are encouraging apprenticeships. I believe that the Scottish Government needs to step up to the mark and do more work to encourage businesses to grow apprenticeships. Before I conclude providing, I thought that it would be interesting to highlight two countries and what two countries are doing in this field. First, in Germany, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research has developed a long-term strategic partnership between science and business. It has launched two initiatives to further the aim, leading edge cluster competition and public-private partnerships to foster innovation. Importance in components of these initiatives include collaborative research and development and developing innovative academic training and degree programmes. The German federal government promotes those systems of vocational education as a key factor in maintaining youth unemployment. The fact that they maintain that youth unemployment at 8.2 per cent, the lowest in Europe, must make this worthy of consideration. The second is in the Netherlands, where the Government has in education sectors commissioned beta-technic. I am acutely aware that I could run out of time, so I am not going to explain that all, but if the Government would like further information on that, I am quite happy to give them that. However, it is clear to me that it takes a holistic approach to solve the problem. We need to make scientific careers more attractive to young people, whilst being innovative in the field of education to ensure that we engage young people at the earliest possible age. We should target industry, schools and university, policy makers and specific regional economic sectors to help us with that. We need to specifically target girls and women and ethnic minorities. Scotland has had excellent reputation over the centuries for performing and being world leaders in STEM subjects. Ross Thompson has said, that we have proved ourselves as being entrepreneurial and an innovative centre for Europe. The discovery of antibiotics, tropical medicine, the invention of the steam engine and television is from that history that we need to recognise the great achievements in science and to build on them. We must challenge this channel of success into promoting STEM and education in the future. It is with great sadness, therefore, to me, that the SEAG secondary report, which was published in 2012, indicated that the Government has not taken positive action on 63 of the recommendations. That, to me, is more than disappointing. To me, they have let themselves down, they have let Scotland down and perhaps we should concentrate more on our future and what we can do for our children than harping about what has gone on in the past. I call on Mr Swinney to wire close for the Government, Cabinet Secretary, till five o'clock please. I just point out to Mr Mountain that he has just concluded his speech by the need to focus on the future and not harp on about the past and just delivered a speech in which he harped on about the past. It is an interesting contradiction in the line of argument from the Conservatives. The highlight of this debate this afternoon was undoubtedly the speech by Stuart Stevenson. I think that I speak for all members in that connection, because I do not think that it takes much imagination to conceive of Mr Stevenson as a school pupil searching for infinity in his classroom. It is quite an endearing picture for us all to contemplate, but not a picture that really takes us much to imagine the possibility of Mr Stevenson engaging in that with such energy and enthusiasm. I want to first of all set out the Government's purpose in taking forward the STEM strategy and the consultation that has been the subject of debate this afternoon. That has been led by the science minister Shirley-Anne Somerville. It has been significantly informed by the contribution of our chief scientific adviser, Professor Sheila Rowan. It is important that those who are entrusted with taking forward the science agenda within the Government are given our support in advancing what is an important subject. It is not lost on me that the leadership of our agenda on science is entrusted to our science minister and our chief scientific adviser, both of whom are women. It is indicative of the Government's determination to tackle the issue of the gender imbalance in the pursuit of science within our country. The Government acknowledges that there is much more that needs to be done to advance all of those arguments. On many points we will disagree this afternoon, but it is very clear that on the question of strengthening the relationship between gender imbalance and STEM and increasing participation in STEM is something upon which we are all agreed. I am very happy to confirm to Parliament today that the Government will, in a very focused way, look at the aims of the strategy to ensure that the fundamental issue of addressing the issue of gender imbalance is at the heart of all that we do in taking forward the next steps of the strategy. Yes, I will do. Mr Greene. I thank John Swinney for taking this intervention. If the Government is so committed to improving the amount of females in studying in Scotland, why has there been a 41 per cent decrease in the amount of women in college in Scotland in eight years? The level of female participation in full-time equivalent places in colleges is on the increase and the data will show that. That is because the Government is concentrating on college places that will support the journey into work for individuals, which is the purpose of college education. A number of colleagues across the political spectrum have paid tribute to my candour at the Royal Society of Chemistry yesterday, and I appreciate that, because the Government goes into this debate with the determination of ensuring that we strengthen the delivery of STEM within Scotland and that we maximise the effectiveness of that. Of course, the Government should be challenged on those questions, but it is equally valid that the Opposition looks carefully at what it is that it is being asked to vote for in the Opposition amendments today. I want to spend a little bit of time just going through those amendments. On the Conservative amendment, the first part of it laments the fact that there has been no response from the Government to the call for fully trained science teachers in primary schools. Despite the fact that I answered that question, and I have only been in office for a few months at the Royal Society of Chemistry event yesterday, and also because the Opposition knows full well that the curriculum for excellence is founded on the principle of our primary school teachers being generalist teachers who are supported to deliver the education that young people require, which is why the Government invests in the Scottish schools education research centre to upskill primary and secondary teachers and technicians to make that contribution. I will give a week to the Smith. The cabinet secretary accepts that the calls that are being made from the learned societies and from the groups who are specialists in physics and chemistry and biology, etc. They are making the very point that they want these specialisms because they feel that the evidence that has been alluded to in many speeches that have been made this afternoon, that we have a severe problem within the STEM area, which is not providing or not delivering on the goods that the Scottish Government itself set out in 2012. We will not always be able to do what all the learned societies want us to do, because what curriculum for excellence is based on is the delivery of a broad general education. Mr Scott made that point in what I thought was a very thoughtful contribution to the debate, and the point that I made to Liz Smith in my earlier intervention is one that she cannot dodge. She comes into this chamber on a regular basis, demanding that we focus on literacy and numeracy, and then comes into the chamber today and demands that we focus on science. I have given away and I have more ground to cover. The contradiction at the heart of the Conservative position is laid bare on that question, but the contradiction goes further. In the second part of Liz Smith's amendment, she laments the fact that there has been no reversal to the recent and damaging cuts to the number of Scottish secondary school teachers in key STEM subjects. Again, that gets to the heart of some of the dilemmas at the heart of education. I do not choose and I have no ability to choose who are the teachers in individual schools in the country. That is properly the preserve of local authorities, but Liz Smith and others will come here and complain about when I try to ensure that local authorities are able to take forward some of the priorities of the Government on teacher numbers, which is what I have put money into the financial settlement to enable that to be the case. Of course, I will give way to Liz Smith. I thank the cabinet secretary for giving away. This is not the Conservatives that are making these points. This is the teaching profession. It is the colleges and the universities and businesses. Will he not accept that? I do not know how it is not the Conservatives that are making these points, because it is in the Conservative amendment that members apparently have been asked to vote about. My point to Liz Smith is that she is at the front of the queue trying to protect the rights of local authorities to take decisions on education. The burden of her amendment is that somehow I should be telling local authorities how many science teachers they should have in their schools. There are the levels of teachers in our schools today higher than they would be if I had not put in place constraints on the ability of local authorities to reduce teacher numbers, which is what they wanted to do. The teacher numbers are in Scotland at the level that we are at, because we put the money in to make sure that that was the case. I will give way to Liz Smith. If the cabinet secretary wants to talk about constraints, how about the constraint of 11 per cent fall in local authority budgets? Given that education is one of the largest budget items in local authority budgets, is that not a somewhat constrained ability to employ science teachers? I do not know what they are applauding. They have been savaging public expenditure from the United Kingdom since 2010. That, Mr Johnson, is the explanation of why there are reductions in budgets in Scotland because of the austerity agenda of the United Kingdom Government. The next part of the agenda is on the points that Iain Gray raised in his amendment. That is about the levels of participation in those subjects. I am the first to accept that there are challenges in encouraging young people to become involved in the same subjects, but what is at the heart of the strategy is the determination to inspire and motivate young people to undertake that pursuit. To ensure that they are given the insight and the energy and the enthusiasm to make that contribution, that is at the heart of the Government's strategy on STEM. That is what we want to make sure is the case in the classrooms in Scotland. That is what we will focus on in taking forward an agenda that has ambition about making sure that Scotland is equipped with the STEM potential and capability to meet the economic challenges of the future. That lies at the heart of the Government's agenda today. That concludes our debate on a STEM strategy. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is that amendment 2418.1.1 in the name of Iain Gray, which seeks to amend amendment 2418.1 in the name of Liz Smith, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We shall move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote in Iain Gray's name is yes, 54, no, 61. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 2418.1 in the name of Liz Smith, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville on a STEM strategy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. Parliament will move to a vote and members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 2418.1 in the name of Liz Smith is yes, 54, no, 61. There were six abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The final question is that motion is on motion 2418 in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville on the Scottish Government's consultation on a strategy for STEM education. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We shall move to a vote again. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on the motion in the name of Shirley-Anne Somerville is yes, 91, no, 30. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting of parliament.