���˿���

I will bring in Alastair Florence, then ask Reuben Aitken to come in. A couple of colleagues are keen to come in, too, but I want to finish off this subject before they do and see whether we can move the discussion on a wee bit.

The reason why I want to bring you in, Alastair, is that I visited your facility just a few weeks ago and was very impressed by what you have. I will give a wee ad for your sector, just as I did for Alastair McInroy’s. In your submission, you say that

“Scotland has a life sciences sector that is rich in drug discovery, biotech, personalised medicines and medical devices spin-outs and start-ups building on the vibrant academic research track record in these fields.”

However, there is an element of frustration in your paper, because you talk about some of the amazing successes where investments in new capacity have boosted the industry in competitor economies such as in Indiana and North Carolina in the United States, and Kinsale, Limerick and Dublin in Ireland. You say that

“these investments align with locations where governments have made strategic investments in strategic national manufacturing research infrastructure enabling countries to drive innovation and develop homegrown talent.”

You suggest

“a different approach to funding.”

Indeed, you say that

“competitive funding seeks to promote excellence”

but just

“leads to ... increased administrative burden,”

and to people “chasing” the same money, with “cliff edges”, “high uncertainty” and so on. I will give you a few minutes to talk about what you think could be done better and more effectively by the Scottish Government.

You talk about real investments that are taking place now in other countries. Eli Lilly has made a $1 billion investment in Limerick and an $800 million investment in Kinsale. Pfizer is investing $1.2 billion in Ireland and AstraZeneca is investing $360 million in Dublin. You say that with that kind of support and investment from the Scottish Government, Scotland could be in a position to compete and attract similar types of investments in the future.

Sandy Begbie wants to make a specific point on that issue, so I will bring him in, to be followed by Reuben Aitken.

The political agnosticism that you mentioned is interesting. Ireland has more or less had that since about 1986, I believe, when it was at a nadir in economic terms. It has grown phenomenally ever since.

I turn to Ruben Aitken. Scottish Enterprise has produced a very impressive paper about all the successes that it has achieved. For example, it mentions supporting more than 960 companies with 1,340 projects, which will safeguard and create 16,782 jobs. It also mentions reducing 468,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, and levering £1.9 billion in capital expenditure and £449 million in research and development and innovation.

However, Scottish Enterprise’s budget appears to be reducing quite substantially in the 2025-26 budget. What is your view on that, and how will you maintain that level of success if, indeed, your allocation is reduced when we finally agree the budget?

You say:

“Our international team is based in Scotland and overseas with approximately 270 staff in total. Over 100 staff are based overseas across 23 different countries from 32 different offices”.

You also say:

“Foreign Direct Investment ... projects in Scotland have enjoyed continuous growth for the fourth consecutive year, increasing by 3.3%, against a background of total UK projects declining by 6.4%.”

You note that Scotland’s market share is 13.6 per cent of inward investment projects and that 26 per cent of the companies that were surveyed said that they plan to invest in Scotland, which represents a significant increase on last year. How valuable are the overseas offices? Some colleagues are of the view that they could be closed.

That is the case land and buildings transaction tax or no.

Someone earning £125,000 a year would pay about £5,300 more in Scotland than they would pay in England. When we spoke to people at the University of Dundee, they said that folk could earn twice as much in California or Cambridge as they would here, but would they like the quality of life there? There are a number of factors. The Scottish Government has said that, last year, 32,000 more people of working age came to Scotland than left—and that included higher earners. At all tax band levels, more people have come in.

I have asked—and colleagues are keen to ascertain—what the sweet spot is in terms of behavioural change. In other words, where does tax go up and revenue go down? Where is that tipping point? We are still a wee bit away from that. You are of the view that we have already reached that tipping point. Would I be right in saying that?

Thank you.

Who is going to be the first of our volunteers for the final say? I see that you are all trying not to catch my eye.

Well done, Claire.

Indeed.

The committee is committed to ensuring that Governments are committed to multiyear funding—I think that the new UK Government is, now, which will certainly help the Scottish Government on that issue and remove short termism. That is a very important point, Reuben.

Okay then, folks, a few people have still not contributed.