Science and the Parliament
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-768, in the name of Des McNulty, on science and the Parliament. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the Science and the Parliament event being held on 28 November 2007 in Our Dynamic Earth, organised once again by the Royal Society of Chemistry in association with Scotland's leading science organisations; notes that this year's theme is "The Science Behind the Energy Debate" in recognition of the important contribution that Scotland's scientific community can make to the debate on this vital policy area; further notes that Scotland is a world leader in many scientific disciplines; recognises the need to foster an environment that enhances pupil and student participation in science, to invest in the science infrastructure and equipment of our educational establishments, to increase investment in research along with supporting greater industrial research and to assist in the practical application of our world-beating research, and hopes that this year's Science and the Parliament event will play a positive part in contributing to the debate on how the Parliament and the Scottish Government address Scotland's energy needs and obligations to tackle climate change in the years ahead.
I am pleased to lead this debate, which highlights the contribution that science is making, and can make in the future, to helping us to find solutions to the challenge of climate change. I attended the earlier sessions of the science and the Parliament event and I am delighted that so many of the delegates are in the public gallery this evening.
The Parliament is grateful to the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Royal Society of Edinburgh for the work that they do in arranging the event and helping to make parliamentarians more aware of scientific research and knowledge. Their parliamentary liaison officer, Bristow Muldoon, is well known to us all and I am sure that members from all sides of the chamber wish him well in the post that he has taken up.
The success of the science and the Parliament event over the past seven years has spawned a joint initiative by the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Parliament information centre, in association with the University of Edinburgh and the Institute of Physics in Scotland, which has resulted in the formation of the Scottish Parliament's science information service. That new service offers MSPs, cross-party groups and researchers access to rapid, reliable and impartial scientific information from leading experts. Requests for information are administered by staff in SPICe and the Royal Society of Chemistry, who will contact any of the 52 topic co-ordinators, who are fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Those topic co-ordinators encompass a broad range of knowledge and expertise and will direct inquiries to the most appropriate expert in the field—so members cannot say that they have not got the information that they need.
This afternoon, delegates heard from a number of leading scientists, including Professor Anne Glover, who is the Scottish Executive's chief scientific officer. She provided a clear summary of the causes and consequences of global warming, informing the question-and-answer sessions and the workshops that took place.
There is no doubt that climate change is firmly on the political agenda. Last week, the Prime Minister called for Britain to lead the way in combating the threat of climate change and said that the world community must show vision and determination in rising to the challenge of tackling climate change. The United Kingdom's groundbreaking Climate Change Bill has now been published and will make Britain the first country in the world to set a legal framework for moving to a low-carbon economy.
Scottish ministers have endorsed the UK Government's introduction of statutory targets and a related framework for action to mitigate climate change by reducing climate change emissions and have signalled their intention to introduce a Scottish climate change bill.
Earlier this week, the Confederation of British Industry's climate change task force made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the challenges facing us. It made a key point about the importance of working together. It said:
"Politicians must give much greater priority to the subject, and not just on an ad-hoc basis. Consumers have to be empowered to make the right decisions and need to be given the facts to make informed judgements. And business must become green to grow."
If there is any doubt about the significance of climate change as a political issue, the Australian election last weekend must concentrate minds. In the country with the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world, voters decided to punish politicians who refused to ratify and implement the Kyoto protocol.
However, promising to reduce carbon emissions in 40 years' time while, for example, promoting transport projects and policies that lead to more and more CO2 belching out of car exhausts is not a sustainable position politically or environmentally. Transport is, obviously, the most difficult area in which to effect change, given the diffuse nature of the emissions involved and our increasing use of cars and aeroplanes, which we will have to curtail in the future. However, we should not overlook energy, which represents the largest single sector responsible for carbon emissions. According to the Executive's figures, energy's share of those emissions is 37 per cent. If we are to come anywhere close to meeting our longer-term targets to reduce emissions, changes in the way in which we generate energy and improvements in energy efficiency are vital. There is a major role in that for Scotland's scientists and for those companies with a significant science base in relevant fields.
In the past, Scottish scientists and engineers were behind inventions such as the steam engine, pneumatic tyres, television, fax machines and microwave ovens, all of which achieved some commercial success. In his speech at the conference, Stewart Stevenson mentioned mathematics, so I will remind members that the decimal point was invented by a Scot, after whom Napier University is named. As modern mathematics would be impossible without the decimal point, we can see why its invention is important to Stewart Stevenson.
Another Scot, Joseph Black, was the first person to isolate and describe the properties of carbon dioxide, which is the key greenhouse gas. We need to ensure that the next generation of Scottish scientists and engineers can contribute to our understanding of the world as well as scientists in previous generations did. We need to help young—and middle-aged—scientists to develop the tools that we need to reverse the growing impact of carbon emissions.
Science can contribute more. Politics is often disputatious and the soundbite can be more important than the substance, whereas scientific disciplines involve rigorous thinking, the testing of assumptions and the weighing of evidence before knowledge claims are accepted. As Anne Glover said today, if we cannot reverse the melting of the icecap over Greenland and the polar regions, countries and regions will be wiped off the map.
Every journey starts with a single step. Anne Glover was right to welcome the increase in the target for the proportion of energy generation that comes from renewables from 40 to 50 per cent. However, hard questions must be asked. Concern about wind power's impact on the landscape has affected the speed at which wind power has been developed. Of course, wind power suffers from intermittency. Wave power is more predictable, but it is a long way from commercial exploitation on a scale that would enable us to replace other energy sources. An increase in the proportion of our energy that comes from renewables must be combined with a reduction in the proportion that is generated from fossil fuels if we are to begin to reduce Scotland's energy emissions.
During today's event, several people pointed out the importance of energy conservation and energy efficiency. However, we seem to be a long way from requiring heat pumps or solar panels to be installed in new houses, which would significantly increase the unit cost of house building.
Politicians must work with scientists, in universities and in businesses, if our economy is to shift towards the consumption of less energy, the production of less waste and the emission of less carbon. Expressions of good will and one-off initiatives will not do if we are unable or unwilling to grasp the nettle and reduce car use, slow down the depletion of fossil fuel resources and accept the inevitable costs that are associated with high energy-efficiency standards.
More than any other group of people, scientists should ask the hard questions about such issues and should demand greater consistency from politicians and Government in tackling the great challenges that are posed by climate change. Scientific experts in Scotland's universities and companies can make a major contribution to the better understanding of climate change. They can assist in setting out what we need to do to reverse the damage that has been done to the environment and they can provide expertise in helping to identify the best prospects for cleaner and greener solutions.
The motion expresses hope that
"this year's Science and the Parliament event will play a positive part in contributing to the debate on how the Parliament and the Scottish Government address Scotland's energy needs and obligations to tackle climate change in the years ahead."
The debate between politicians and the science community must continue. The debate will be enriched by the expertise that is available, and I hope that we can all listen to and learn from Scotland's scientific community.
I am grateful to Des McNulty for slating the subject for debate. A year ago, the First Minister ended his campaign launch with a quotation from Hugh MacDiarmid:
"The present's theirs, but a' the past an future's oors."
Scotland has a stunning scientific past and, potentially, an amazing future, although that was not helped by the recent dish-towel saga—in The Scotsman, I think—which in a search for present-day achievements could come up with only Dolly the sheep and Michelle Mone's Ultimo bra. To be savaged by a dead sheep and supported by Scotland's other silicone glen—that is Labour's problem.
Let us think instead of the Clerk Maxwells and the Edisons: the former make the philosophical and theoretical breakthroughs and the latter transform those breakthroughs into saleable businesses, profits and a social dividend. The looming climate crisis has the world in a tight place and we have just a chance of getting humanity out of it—which will be the greatest service that we can do.
We must make a plan, as John Buchan's old Boer guerrilla, Peter Pienaar, might say. Let us consider the plan that we must make. The Government initiative on renewables through the prizes that the budget offers must be used to facilitate the second stage of adaptivity—what my Swabian friends would call tuefteln: playing around with an innovation until it becomes marketable.
We ought to name the main prize not after Clerk Maxwell but after Lord Kelvin. The latter may not have been as brilliant as Maxwell, but he was a theoretician and adaptor—more of an Edison type. Kelvin's work on the principles of water condensation captured for the Clyde in the 1850s the market for high-pressure marine engines that required clean water. His work made the river the world's prime ship-building centre, which is a title that it held until very recently.
In 1988, I remember seeing the Ocean Alliance being built at Port Glasgow. In place of the Scott Lithgow yard, we now have four call centres, which—we are told—act as an introduction to the knowledge economy. At Clydebank, we have seen the demolition of the John Brown yard, which latterly made rigs, but which is now to be the site of yet another Tesco or luxury shopping development.
Christopher Harvie has, I think, inadvertently misled Parliament. The site will definitely not be a Tesco, or any other retail development.
I am very glad about that.
We have an ever-bigger challenge in terms of renewables, particularly in harnessing what, in Arthur Hugh Clough's marvellous words, is
"the might of the mighty Atlantic".
We are a little later on in that development than Des McNulty's comparison with North Sea oil might lead us to think. My belief is that we are at the 1968 stage: I should know—I wrote the book. Various wave-generation prototypes are now proven and must be put into action. We now have to concentrate on transmission and storage of the power, in addition to burying the results of earlier carbon activity. The equivalent of about 250 billion tonnes of oil and gas has been lifted out of the North Sea, which means that about 250 billion tonnes of space is now available into which carbon dioxide can be reverse pumped.
The creation of a new technology network needs social back-up and public investment that concentrates on innovation, training and adaptation, but not on people working along the lines of the "same procedure as before". Only we can do the networks.
In terms of renewables, we must first tap into the technical expertise of Europe—particularly, Switzerland, Austria and Germany. Secondly, we need to know where to get the semi-finished equipment built. Thanks to our banking connections, it is likely that that will be done in China. We also have the Open University, which has the skills to disseminate education and training. However, we must have a plan. People in other countries that border the Atlantic—I am thinking of the Irish and Spanish—have good entrepreneurial techniques and training. If we do not move, they will take the initiative.
I, too, congratulate Des McNulty on securing the debate today to coincide with this year's science in the Parliament event. Over several years, I was pleased to sponsor the event. I apologise to the organisers that the combination of an unforeseen event and preparation for debates tomorrow mean that I have not as yet been over to Our Dynamic Earth. I will go after the debate. I hope that people do not think that I am going there only for the wine.
Des McNulty referred to our esteemed former colleague Bristow Muldoon. In that regard, the Parliament's loss is definitely the Royal Society of Edinburgh's and the Royal Society of Chemistry's gain. Prior to Bristow becoming the event organiser for this and other events, one Willie Rennie was the science and the Parliament organiser. I have only two grouses with him. Of course, the first is that he took the Dunfermline and West Fife seat from Labour at the recent by-election, although that said, Thomas Docherty will rectify the situation at the next election. My other grouse with Willie Rennie is one that he will recall: at a Labour party conference one year, he persuaded me to take a health check, part of which involved an electric current being run through my arms and into a machine, after which a man told me that I was obese. I did not take that terribly well. In fact, I took it so badly that Willie still recalls the incident. He mentioned it to my colleague Russell Brown after he took his seat in the House of Commons.
I turn to the serious matter of the debate. The challenge of climate change must, and will, be addressed in two ways. First, of course, we must change our behaviour. However, we cannot expect people to go backwards in lifestyle terms. People are used to having energy supplied to their homes, to owning cars and so forth. They will not volunteer to go back to a dark age.
Therefore, we need development of new technologies that will enable us to enjoy our lifestyle better, without damaging the planet as we are. We need to develop alternatives to the internal combustion engine. I understand that a lot of work is being done in Japan on fuel-cell cars—we need to be at the forefront of that type of technology, too. We need to develop more forms of low and non-carbon-producing power generation. Renewables, microgeneration and, I believe, new nuclear power generation will play parts. There is international co-operation on developing nuclear fusion power. At one stage, I thought that the curtain had fallen on nuclear fusion, but it could be a future source of power.
We need developments in information and communication technology to enable people to work from home, so that they do not produce carbon by travelling to work. I believe that next week in the Sunday newspapers, there will be an article about the possibilities of data storage. One developer is keen on developing data storage facilities in Lockerbie in my constituency.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I have only one minute, otherwise I would.
The idea is to link that development in Lockerbie to the development of an internet village, using the excess power from data storage—which would be green energy—to power houses. That is an interesting project. I am not sure whether Mr Mather's colleague Mike Russell has spoken to him about it, but I know that Mike Russell is aware of the project. I realise that the minister cannot comment on the proposal, as it may come to the Government for ministerial approval, but it is an extremely exciting project, not just for Lockerbie, but for Scotland.
We need to produce more science graduates and postgraduates. Polly Purvis of ScotlandIS recently highlighted the shortage of computer science undergraduates and postgraduates, which is a significant concern to the information technology sector and other sectors that it services, such as the financial services sector. We need to tackle such shortages in two ways. One is to consider how we can improve science education in school—obviously, early numeracy is essential to that—and the other is to consider how we can reskill adults. For example, if there are to be fewer jobs in the public sector as a result of decluttering, we must consider how to offer training so that individuals can transfer from the public sector to the private sector, where there are skills shortages.
I, too, congratulate Des McNulty on securing the debate. I welcome those who are in the public gallery and who were at today's conference. The theme of science and the Parliament is important and we should be proud to support that theme in the debate and in the Parliament generally. Scotland has a tremendous record on science, which is based on our great education tradition. Scotland was one of the first countries to educate a high proportion of its population. From an early stage, science and the engineering that evolved from it were key principles in our burgeoning industrialising economy. Of course, that industrialisation has resulted in some of the problems that we face today. The theme of the science behind climate change is an appropriate one for Scotland, which knows what it has been responsible for in the past and what it must achieve in the future.
As I said, the idea of science in the Parliament is important. Some members know a bit about science and can talk with authority on scientific subjects, but others are influenced more by public pressure and sometimes perhaps by public prejudice. That is why it is good that we have offers from scientists of all kinds to educate members and keep us right about the facts on many scientific issues. During the argument about the future of energy generation in Scotland, we have had to suffer some rather ill-informed comments about our erstwhile important nuclear industry. In recent times, we have had problems explaining to some members the possible significance of genetic engineering and biotechnology for Scotland's economy in the 21st century. Political prejudices often stand in the way of advances, so the offers of education are useful.
We must be careful in talking about climate change and how we deal with it, because Scotland has much to offer on that. The idea that we should simply run down our economy to remove our emissions of CO2 and other global-warming gases is simply unacceptable in a developed democracy.
If we value our public services, and if we are concerned to ensure that men and women in this country are not subjected to the disadvantages of poverty that previous generations suffered, we must ensure that our economy continues to grow. For that reason, we must go back once again to the people in our country who have a great record in science and engineering and who can achieve still greater things in the future.
An engineering solution to Scotland's problems would, of course, be valuable because it would save us from economic degeneration. More important, if we can develop new technologies that assist the rest of the world in achieving the same aims, there will be two benefits: first, we will deliver benefits to other countries that do not have our advantages; and secondly, if we can persuade other countries—China and India in particular—to use our new technologies instead of digging up and burning the coal that we know they have, their surplus gases will not blow around the world and cause the problems that we suffer here.
Scotland has a great past in science and engineering. However, in recent years we have seen a drift away from those subjects in our schools and universities and we hear now that schools have a shortage of maths and physics teachers, in particular. Let us, the politicians, solve the problems that are in front of us today, but let us also ensure that our education system in the future is designed to produce the next generation of science and engineering graduates who will deliver what we need in Scotland and all around the world.
I will start by striking a slightly discordant tone: science at the moment is the bane of my life, and chemistry in particular has been the root cause of much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the McArthur household. My two young sons have taken to conducting chemistry experiments at home. Not magic potions, not malevolent poisons—no, I am assured that these are chemical experiments. They are concocted by emptying every bottle in the house that does not sport a skull and crossbones. As a result of one such experiment the other week, we are having to repaint the front porch.
Normally, I would blame the parents, but as there is barely a science O-grade between my wife and me, my sons' enthusiasm appears to defy simple genetics. However, the experience has confirmed for me the importance of nurturing the innate curiosity of all children about how things work, how they are made up and how they interact with other things. I share Elaine Murray's view about the central importance of how science is taught in schools and how such curiosity is stimulated throughout the critical pre-school years and onwards.
I am not saying that everyone should aspire to work in scientific fields but, although our scientific literacy bears comparison with our international competitors, a wider appreciation of science by non-scientists would certainly be desirable. I echo what Alex Johnstone said: it would be helpful if the minister could tell us what steps the Government is taking to manage the need for good-quality chemistry, physics and maths teachers in future, especially given the current age profile of teachers in those subjects.
Fundamental though schools are, much of the focus of the debate—not just today in Our Dynamic Earth but since the Government announced the budget earlier this month—has understandably been on the size of the settlement for the Scottish higher education sector. That may be a debate for another day, but there is no escaping the fact that the real-terms cut in the first year of the spending review period and the lower-than-expected rises thereafter will impact on our universities' ability to build on the excellent work that they have been doing.
In the context of this debate, it is pertinent to draw attention to the impact that the budget settlement will have on research and development and on the critical area of knowledge transfer. Both those issues will be key to developing a response to the energy challenge. Scottish universities have made impressive strides in pooling research capabilities. More collaboration across research disciplines will be an essential next phase—but, again, the budget settlement makes the process more difficult.
The theme of this year's science and the Parliament event is energy, and it could not be more appropriate or timely. Anne Glover's presentation set out the stark reality of the situation facing us. The challenges are certainly enormous. However, the impact that each of us as individuals can have should not be underestimated. Public opinion and public acceptance have moved a long way in a relatively short time. There is also a degree of political consensus on the issues that we face, although there is less consensus on how we should address them.
As the Stern review made abundantly clear, the costs of inaction and delay are considerable, so collaboration between the scientific community and politicians is fundamental. Politicians can lead, educate, regulate and fund, and scientists can innovate, inform and challenge, but what they can achieve together is almost certainly more than the sum of their respective parts. In my constituency of Orkney, real strides have been made through the collaborative work of the European Marine Energy Centre, Heriot-Watt University, the Scottish Renewables Forum, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and government at a local and national level. That work has put Orkney at the centre of worldwide marine renewables.
The science and the Parliament event has established itself over the past seven years as a valuable forum in which ideas can be exchanged. In that regard, it can help to ensure that informed decisions are taken for our long-term interests. Like Alex Johnstone, I congratulate all those who have been involved in today's event, many of whom are present in the public gallery. I also congratulate Des McNulty on securing such a worthwhile debate.
I too congratulate Des McNulty on securing this enormously important debate. I sympathise with Liam McArthur—I was one of those small boys who did the chemistry thing. Anybody who knows the smell of sulphur dioxide—and a few people here will—understands why I rapidly got out of my bedroom when I managed to fill the room with it. When I realised that the smell would stick around, I went back in, holding my breath, opened the window, and came back out again. That may explain why, in later life, I stopped being a chemist and became a chemical engineer. Other people worried about the chemistry; I just worried about the big pots and pans that made it all happen—it was actually much more fun.
I want to touch on a couple of issues, starting with the hydrogen economy. We all recognise that our generation and that of our children will have to worry about carbon. Our children and grandchildren may worry about nuclear power, although I hope that they will not have to. In the long term, when the carbon runs out, even nuclear will give us a problem. The balance of what we know—which perhaps ignores fusion, which may yet come as our salvation—is that wind, wave and other renewable sources can be converted into hydrogen by a simple process of electrolysis. Heaven knows, Scotland is not short of water to electrolyse. However, we need to solve the problem of moving that hydrogen around—I am very aware that there are real technical problems, given its boiling point. I make a serious plea that we should not forget the hydrogen economy. It will probably not save us or our children, but that it is where I think the planet needs to go.
In relation to an earlier comment that was made about running down our economy, does the member agree that in fact the trick will be to gear up the economy to deliver what we want—which is human well-being, social well-being and economic well-being—without impacting as much as we are doing on the environment?
I absolutely agree, but surely the thrust of the move to renewables should be that we power—and power in more than one sense—what needs to be powered from the right sources rather than the wrong or outdated sources.
My second plea returns me to my background. I did half a chemistry degree, then half an engineering degree. A chemical engineer is someone who belongs to the Institution of Chemical Engineers, as I once did. A better definition is that a chemical engineer is someone who talks engineering when there are chemists around, talks chemistry when there are engineers around and talks golf when both are around. An even better definition, which I got from my first boss, is that a chemical engineer is someone who can do for half a crown what any fool can do for a pound. Somewhere in between those definitions, we get the right answer.
My plea is that we do not do too much to differentiate too early on in our education system between science, engineering and maths. I would call them all "hard science", although they are largely called maths, physics and chemistry at school—I am not trying to ignore the biosubjects. I had the benefit of doing a degree in which it took a long time to sort out precisely which discipline I was going to train in. That approach has merits, and I encourage all those who have anything to do with secondary and tertiary education to try to ensure that those who go through it have a good grounding in hard science—in particular, a good grasp of maths, and, if remotely possible, a grasp of thermodynamics—so that when they later take a particular discipline, they come with a good background.
We need more professional advisers. We need people who can do the work, people who can manage that work and people who can teach. We also need as many folk as possible in places such as the Parliament who understand what is going on. We cannot have too many technically qualified people.
I applaud the Royal Society of Chemistry for today's event. Unfortunately, I have not visited it, but I may follow Elaine Murray over for a glass of wine.
I, too, congratulate Des McNulty on securing the debate, which concerns issues that are crucial to Scotland. I also congratulate the organisers of the science and the Parliament event on yet another successful event this year. Their presence and the debate provide an excellent opportunity for the Parliament to discuss this crucial issue, but they also enable us to celebrate the achievements of scientists and technologists whose contribution to our economic success and to improving our quality of life are perhaps not praised widely enough, albeit that Christopher Harvie conjured up quite a galaxy with Clerk Maxwell and Kelvin and told us that they had followed the Adam Smith path and were leading us on to the Paul Romer path of neoclassical endogenous growth theory that would give us a perpetual panoply of new technologies rather than see Scotland fall into the trap of lower-wage jobs and a low-wage economy.
However, there is also the really big issue of climate change, which is clearly one of the most serious threats that we face today. We recognise the absolute need to take action to avoid and reduce emissions if we are to avert disaster for ourselves and future generations. Our everyday activity generates emissions, but we all need to travel and use energy. Indeed, those facts bring us into a difficult tension with our overall priority to grow our economy sustainably.
Being on the edge of our major markets in Europe adds further to the difficulty: we need good transport links and reliable energy supplies to enable Scottish businesses to compete in the global marketplace. However, there is also a positive side: our location delivers the natural resources and triggers the research and investment that will enable Scotland to harness renewable energy to the material benefit of its economy and environment. Indeed, Scottish and Southern Energy proved that point in Brussels last night when it briefed European Commission officials and other potential allies on the progress that it is making on offshore wind, wave and tidal technologies and the immense progress that it is making on energy efficiency—all of that here in Scotland.
It is clear that our path to that new future depends crucially on science and technology, which can provide us with new ways of generating energy as well as saving it and new ways of continuing to grow Scotland's economy without growing carbon emissions. They can also allow us to make the best possible use of our vast renewable energy potential. I have just been reading a book that I thoroughly recommend to members: "A Thousand Barrels a Second: The Coming Oil Break Point and the Challenges Facing an Energy Dependent World". Essentially, it draws the conclusion that while others might fool themselves that oil prices could come down to $60, $50 or $40 a barrel, the issue now is to crack on and make the most of new technologies and natural resources.
This Government will ensure that there is good support to maintain our global lead in wave and tidal energy and to ensure that we build on the research base and the development of new industries and products, such as offshore wind and hydrogen fuel cells. In the meantime, we are taking action to ensure that we make the most of Scotland's clean energy potential. Carbon capture also presents an enormous opportunity. The vast capacity of the oil wells has been mentioned. It was interesting to hear Ian Marchant, the chief executive of Scottish and Southern Energy, make the case last night that carbon capture demonstration systems should not only be used but be used in Scotland.
Scotland stands in a strong position to take advantage of such opportunities with the knowledge that we have gained from oil and gas production in the North Sea. I believe that we have the expertise, appetite and capacity to become the pre-eminent location for green energy research and development in Europe. The Government will do all that we can to foster that, because it will create a new economic opportunity and new career opportunities for individuals; grow and retain more wealth in Scotland; and create export markets for energy, products and engineering support and advice, as well as guidance in energy, energy goods and energy services.
Scotland already has an excellent science base that is punching above its weight in credibility and enjoying a fantastic reputation for integrity. Five of our universities are rated among the top 200 in the world. That, effectively, is the best performance of any country when we factor in the relative sizes of the competing nations.
We are all very proud of what our universities do, and they are among the best in the world. The minister has obviously been spending time reading books. Has he taken time to read what the Royal Society of Edinburgh and Universities Scotland have said about the real-terms cut in funding for universities next year?
I hope that the member is not advocating that we do not read books. We must keep sharpening the saw. I have been reading what others have been saying. The Government's commitment to the sector is clearly signalled in the spending review, with a total increase of 10.9 per cent over three years, which is more than 2 per cent above inflation. In addition, we have spent a lot of time over the past six months talking to different industry sectors—life sciences and electronics, for instance—as we seek more collaboration and cohesion between and within those sectors and academia.
The Government is setting up new initiatives to encourage innovation. We have established a £2 million saltire prize fund, and we are developing the saltire horizon prize which, at £10 million, will be one of the biggest international innovation prizes in history. The prize will inspire the cream of the world's scientists to revolutionise the future of green energy.
We need to keep investing in young people to bring the next generation of scientists through, which is why the Government is placing science and technology at the heart of education. We must enthuse young people about science at the earliest age. I applaud the work of Peter Hughes of Scottish Engineering, who has taken his person and his guitar around the schools of Scotland and has enthused people such as my daughter, who has moved on to become an engineer. I am very encouraged by the 2007 figures on science uptake in schools. The number of science highers has gone up by 11 per cent year on year, and entrance to science courses at university has also been increasing in recent years.
If we work together and with the support of a robust science and innovation sector, I am sure that Scotland will be able to show the world that we can be a really prosperous low-carbon economy. That is what we are trying to do as we activate the various industry sectors, as we talk to academia and as we seek to ensure that those activated centres create the collaboration that this country needs to capture everything that Des McNulty set out today.
That means answering the challenge, as Des McNulty defined it, of putting our declarations of intent into action and working together on a common goal. That is the key point that Mr McNulty was making, and I have drawn a lot from it tonight. If we do that, if we harness the expertise of previous generations, as Christopher Harvie said, if we develop the right skills and the sort of approach that, to refer to what Nigel Don said, effectively allows chemical engineers to talk a lot more about golf—or to talk about a lot more than golf—and to achieve more monuments to their success and if we follow Elaine Murray's advocacy of being both global and local, we can achieve something rather wonderful in Scotland.
Meeting closed at 17:48.