Official Report 445KB pdf
Item 4 is evidence taking on two proposed cross-party groups. The first group that we will consider is a proposed CPG on autism. I welcome Graeme Dey MSP to the meeting. Graeme is the co-convener of the group. I invite him to make an opening statement about its purpose.
Thank you, convener, and good morning. There has been a feeling for some time in the autism community, and perhaps also among MSPs, that the lack of a cross-party group on autism in the Parliament was a missed opportunity to raise awareness of autism issues. I am also conscious that there was such a group two parliamentary sessions ago.
In Scotland, it is said that about 58,000 people—young people and adults—identify as having autism, and they have more than 174,000 family members and carers, although I suspect that the numbers are considerably higher than that. There is a clear constituency of interest to highlight.
The Scottish Government strategy on autism identifies it as a national priority. However, I suspect that all MSPs would recognise from their surgery case loads that, in reality, the needs of the group are often not being adequately met. If approval is given by the committee to establish the cross-party group, the group will seek to bring together individuals, organisations and parliamentarians who have a shared interest to promote the interests of autistic people, their families and the carers at the Parliament with a view to influencing Scottish Government policy and improving the lives of that group.
As members will be aware, autism is often diagnosed alongside other conditions, some of which are the subject of a dedicated cross-party group. For example, there are CPGs on dyslexia, epilepsy, mental health and learning disability. Those CPGs undertake work that is relevant to autistic people but, as stated in the “Scottish Strategy for Autism”, autistic people
“have a unique set of conditions which will not necessarily fall within the categories of learning disabilities or mental health, although these conditions may be present.”
It is because the needs arising from autism are distinct and are not being met that a stand-alone CPG on autism is required. Of course, opportunities to work collaboratively with other CPGs would be explored.
It is proposed that the CPG on autism would meet quarterly and each session would be one and a half to two hours long. The group would discuss up to two topics at each CPG meeting. In the first 12 months, it is proposed that the group would discuss mental health, education, diagnosis and service provision.
Do members have any questions?
It is very good that you identify that there may well be a crossover between your proposed group and other CPGs, because autism has been seen as a learning disability, but you have made a good case for having a stand-alone group, and I concur with that. Will you give some examples of the joint work that the CPG on autism might choose to do with other CPGs and say how, on the back of that, this group might develop its own platform?
I think that we are very open minded on that. It would be up to the group to identify areas of co-operation, and I would not want to prejudge what its participants might see as being important. Some fairly obvious things strike me, but I would be guided by what the membership felt. It is absolutely the case that we have seen good examples of parliamentary cross-party groups working together, and I think that it would absolutely be the way forward for this group, if the committee were to approve it.
Welcome to the committee, Mr Dey. Why are no individuals listed as members in your initial application for the group? You are indeed right to say that there was previously a cross-party group on autism. Coincidentally, I was its convener when it was disbanded; its disbanding was due partly to the parliamentary nature of cross-party groups simply being lost, but I think that, under the new rules in Parliament, that might be less of an issue. Do you intend to have individual members, or are you just going to have MSPs and organisations?
That is a good question. I am aware of the issues with the previous CPG on autism; as you have said, the rules have changed, but it is also the case that some CPGs have a code of conduct for their operation, and I think that that might be an opportunity that we could consider.
As for your question about individuals, I think, again, that that will be for the group to decide, if it is approved. You are right to say that no individuals have been listed, but we want to reach out to as many people as possible—although I assure you that we will be circumspect in how the group is taken forward.
All I would say is that meetings of cross-party groups can become confused with public meetings, and their parliamentary nature can cause some difficulty. That is my reason for asking the question.
We are acutely aware of that possibility and mindful of how we might address the issue, if, with the committee’s approval, we move forward on this.
Thank you.
As members have no more questions, I thank Mr Dey for coming along today. We will consider under agenda item 6 whether to approve the cross-party group and we will let you know our decision in due course.
Thank you very much, convener.
The second cross-party group application for the committee’s consideration is for the proposed cross-party group on life sciences. I welcome to the meeting the group’s convener, Kenneth Gibson MSP, and invite him to make an opening statement about its purpose.
Thank you, convener, and thank you for the invitation to come along this morning.
The life sciences comprise the branches of science that involve the scientific study of living organisms such as micro-organisms, plants, animals and human beings as well as related considerations such as bioethics. The Scottish Government has identified the life sciences industry as a key growth sector of the Scottish economy in recognition of its current contribution to and enormous potential for Scotland. Not only does this cutting-edge science-based industry constantly push the limits of research and application, it makes a significant contribution to Scotland, generating around £2,600 million in gross value added and employing 37,000 people across the country. There was a cross-party group on this subject in the previous session of Parliament, and I have been asked to reconvene it.
The CPG will act as a channel for communications and information between the Scottish Parliament and people within organisations in the life sciences sector in Scotland, including industry, academia, research and manufacturing. It will identify and discuss policy areas of particular relevance to the life sciences sector and support the delivery of the Scottish life sciences strategy as set out by the Scottish industry leadership group on life sciences, and we will work with Scottish parliamentarians to ensure that the skill set required to deliver the Scottish life sciences strategy is acknowledged and met, including positively addressing the challenges facing women with regard to science. Finally, we want to enable the life sciences sector across Scotland to showcase its world-class work in the Scottish Parliament.
We had an initial meeting on 28 November 2017 with Professor Graeme Roy of the Fraser of Allander institute, who spoke about the 2018 economic impact report on the pharmaceutical sector in Scotland. We elected two deputy conveners and I was elected convener.
We have two proposed meetings. The first is on 27 March, when the theme will be “Life Sciences for all ... let’s not miss out on 50% of the workforce!” Dame Anne Glover, president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, will present her views on barriers and opportunities for women in life sciences. Dr Barbara Blaney of BioCity and the Athena SWAN—scientific women’s academic network—initiative will give a presentation on opportunities in life sciences from an industrial and academic perspective. A female apprentice from GSK manufacturing will give a presentation on her motivations to follow science as a career—we have not identified who that individual will be just yet.
On 28 June, we will discuss the life sciences strategy for Scotland 2025 vision. We have invited the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy and Dr Dave Tudor to showcase success and discuss future challenges in reaching the Scottish vision for life sciences.
That is the situation at the moment. I am happy to take any questions.
Looking at the list of organisations that are proposed as members of the cross-party group, I see that it is quite a long list. A large number of organisations are showing an interest. Some of them I am familiar with and some I am not. What proportion of the organisations are private companies with commercial interests in the subjects that will be discussed as opposed to academic or other organisations that do not fall into that category? Does that aspect raise any issues?
We still have organisations and academics looking to join, but we had around 40 people at the inaugural meeting. There were nine MSPs. The balance at the meeting was about two thirds academic and one third commercial, but there was quite a lot of interaction. They are not two separate groups. Many of the academics work closely with the sector, for example, on the commercial development of new, innovative products.
We had a presentation on a revolutionary new medical crystal that is being developed by the CMAC—continuous manufacturing and advanced crystallisation—consortium at the University of Strathclyde. That will be a world-leading pharmaceutical development if it comes to fruition.
It is very difficult to separate out the groups; there is a tight relationship between the private sector and academia and that will be reflected in the CPG.
Mr Gibson, you mentioned that there was a CPG on life sciences in the previous parliamentary session. In your application, you mention that there is currently a CPG on science and technology. Was there also a CPG on science and technology in the previous session? Do you know whether both those groups were running at the same time?
I am not aware that there was a CPG on science and technology in the previous session, but that may be because I was involved in other areas. Certainly, I do not believe that there is any crossover in this session.
I understand that there can be a lot of overlap in cross-party groups—I know that that is an issue that this committee has looked at. However, I feel that often, when there is an overlap, it can provide an opportunity for CPGs to work together. For example, in the previous session, the CPG on epilepsy that I convened had a joint session with Malcolm Chisholm’s CPG on mental health. Sometimes, even when there is an overlap, it can be synergistic rather than a duplication.
Looking at the policy areas, I see that one of the main purposes for the CPG seems to be to support the delivery of the Scottish life sciences strategy. Can you explain a bit more about that? Is that the Scottish Government strategy?
The Scottish Government strategy dovetails with the industry strategy. Life sciences are a rapidly growing sector across the world; they are also a sector that involves very close co-operation, as I have mentioned, with the academic sector. It is about trying to ensure that, as the sector develops, Scotland is not only part of that but leads the way in technical innovation. The reason for that is obviously to try to stimulate investment and employment in Scotland.
We heard at the inaugural meeting that 80 per cent of research and development in this industry in the UK is in the south-east of England and London, but that area produces only 40 per cent of the products. Scotland has a much lower level of investment but much higher productivity, and it is more innovative in what it produces. It is trying to capitalise on Scotland’s excellent reputation in research and development to attract more of those innovative research and development companies that will invest and create jobs and prosperity in Scotland. That ties in with the Scottish Government strategy to double employment and investment in this industry over the next decade.
10:00
I met representatives of Scotland’s life sciences industry a few days ago and I recognise its importance. You have mentioned that the group would address the challenge of involving women in science. None of the organisations that are listed deals specifically with getting more women into science, representing women in science or encouraging young women to get into science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Would you encourage some of the organisations to get involved in that challenge?
That is a very good question. Ninety per cent of the people at the inaugural meeting were male, which is why our next meeting is on the specific issue that you have raised. Last year, I attended an event at Kilwinning college called #ThisAyrshireGirlCan, at which the First Minister spoke. It was trying to get young women to be interested in science, even at a primary and secondary school level. Young women who work in aircraft manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and even fixing turbines did not just talk about the issues but gave examples to show what they do.
At the next meeting, an apprentice will talk about what she will do. We will make quite clear at the meeting that this industry—or many others—cannot reach their full potential if the female 52 per cent of the population do not play their full role in it. The group has a real interest in redressing the balance to get many more young—and probably older—women into the industry. It is a very productive industry; it pays good wages and has good terms and conditions and I hope that a lot of women would want to work in it. We want our member organisations to take that forward. If the cross-party group is registered, the focus on this issue will be important.
How do you see the group contributing to Scotland’s 2025 vision?
We will interact very closely with the Scottish Government. For example, the Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy, Paul Wheelhouse, will come to our June meeting. Prior to that, I have asked member organisations to set him a list of questions about their issues and concerns and how we can take them forward successfully. I want the minister to have those questions a week or two beforehand, so that he can answer them on the day. Member organisations and individuals will be able to ask further questions to ensure that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet and taking the strategy forward together. If there are any issues or glitches in the strategy, the Scottish Government may look again at how to improve one or two aspects of it. Co-operation and working together will take the industry forward.
Will the group challenge the 2025 vision?
Of course the group will be challenging. The group is not there to sit like nodding donkeys and agree with whatever the Scottish Government says. It is interesting that two deputy conveners are Conservative MSPs, and I hope to get people from other parties to take officer positions. That is the situation at the moment. I am pretty sure that the group will challenge the Government, because it is in all our interests to ensure that we have the best-possible strategy and the best-performing life sciences industry.
A challenge that I have identified for cross-party groups is how to get geographic representation. It takes a long time for people from the Highlands and Islands or the west coast to get to Edinburgh, and therefore they choose not to. We do not have a good videoconferencing set-up. Life sciences are of particular interest in the Highlands and Islands; it is a growing industry there and the region is identified as an area of growth. How do you intend to make sure that all geographic regions are represented on the group?
To be honest, I have not discussed the matter and, in any case, I think that I would have to take it to the group instead of making up an answer off the top of my head. It is important to discuss such issues with colleagues. I have to say that I have never experienced videoconferencing at a cross-party group meeting, but I see no reason why we could not look at the possibility.
As you have pointed out, the life sciences industry goes right across Scotland. For example, GSK is in North Ayrshire—not in my constituency, I should say, but in a neighbouring one—but it also has a very strong footprint in Montrose, and there are lots of bioscience industries in Lothian, Lanarkshire and, indeed, the Highlands. We could certainly consider the suggestion that you have made, and I will certainly take it back to the group and see what it has to say about it.
I thank Mr Gibson for attending the meeting. We will consider the application at item 6 and contact him in due course.
Thank you, convener. I want to thank committee members, too.
I suspend briefly for a changeover of witnesses.
10:05 Meeting suspended.