Official Report

I ask the members of the public who are leaving the gallery to do so quietly, as the meeting has resumed and we are moving on to a debate.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-15935, in the name of Liam McArthur, on the 50th anniversary of the Longhope lifeboat disaster. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Longhope lifeboat tragedy, which took place on 17 March 1969; recalls with great sadness that all eight crew members on board the lifeboat, TGB, perished as it capsized in heavy seas after responding to a call from the Wick Coastguard to assist the Liberian-registered vessel, Irene, which was in difficulty and drifting 21 miles east of Duncansby Head; understands that, while the Irene was finally driven onto rocks at Grimness in South Ronaldsay, and the crew brought safely ashore, TGB and her crew were not so fortunate, with the vessel being discovered capsized four miles south west of Tor Ness on 18 March; recognises the shock felt by the whole Orkney community at such a tragic loss of life, but in particular acknowledges the devastating impact on the small community of Brims in Longhope on the island of Hoy, which suffered the loss of a quarter of its population that night; believes that the tragedy was compounded by the fact that fathers and their sons were among those who perished; pays tribute to the ultimate sacrifice made by Coxswain Dan Kirkpatrick, Second Coxswain Jimmy Johnston, Bowman Ray Kirkpatrick, Mechanic Robert B Johnston, Assistant Mechanic Jimmy Swanson, and lifeboat men Jack Kirkpatrick, Robert Johnston and Eric McFadyen; agrees wholeheartedly with the sentiment on the memorial to all eight crew members “that greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his fellow men”; notes that the current crew includes relatives of the crew from 1969, and that they, along with others, help run the Longhope Lifeboat Museum, which provides a fitting reminder of the disaster, as well as the life-saving work carried out by the crew of the TGB; wishes those from the local community involved in organising events to mark this difficult anniversary all the best, and extends its heartfelt thanks to lifeboat crews across the country for the selfless work that they do on behalf of the island and coastal communities they serve with such bravery and distinction.

Dan Kirkpatrick, coxswain; James Johnston, second coxswain; Ray Kirkpatrick, bowman; Robert B Johnston, mechanic; Jimmy Swanson, assistant mechanic; and Jack Kirkpatrick, Robbie Johnston and Eric McFadyen, lifeboatmen: those are the names of the eight men who perished when the Longhope lifeboat TGB capsized in high winds and heavy seas in the Pentland Firth on the night of 17 March 1969. Fifty years on, neither the significance nor the poignancy of that tragic event have diminished.

It is not possible in seven minutes to do justice either to what happened or to the bravery of those who lost their lives that night, but it is right for Parliament to have an opportunity to mark the anniversary and to pay tribute to Dan Kirkpatrick and his crew. I am therefore grateful to the many MSPs from all parties who signed my motion, which has allowed the debate to take place, and to colleagues who are in the chamber this afternoon.

There have, of course, been many tragic events in which the loss of life has been considerably greater, but the fact that the eight men died in the selfless act of trying to save others helps, I think, to explain why it had, and continues to have, such a profound impact on the public consciousness.

However, it would do a disservice to the memory of Dan Kirkpatrick and his crew to focus solely on what happened that fateful night. They all had lives well beyond their involvement with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, but even with that, their wider achievements deserve recognition. The crew had shown its worth and proved its mettle over the years by saving many lives and receiving numerous awards for bravery. Indeed, Dan Kirkpatrick was due to have travelled to London in the week following the disaster to receive an RNLI silver clasp and the award for the bravest act of lifesaving in 1968, in acknowledgement of heroics that he and his crew performed in saving 15 men aboard the Grimsby trawler Ross Puma. It was their third such honour. He would have vigorously rejected any such suggestion, but Dan Kirkpatrick was something of a celebrity. As well as the RNLI silver medal and clasps, he received the British empire medal and even appeared on “This Is Your Life” with Eamonn Andrews in 1963.

That is all a far cry from the events of Monday 17 March 1969. The lifeboat was launched just before 8 pm in response to a call for help from the Liberian cargo ship, the SS Irene. It was reported to be in difficulties east of Orkney, apparently out of control and drifting in a south-easterly force 9 gale that had been blowing for days, and which was creating mountainous waves of up to 60 feet. As it turned out, the stricken vessel was to run aground at Grimness in South Ronaldsay, where the crew of 17 were brought safely to shore by the Broughness and Deerness coastguard teams in a textbook rescue by breeches buoy, for which those involved were later honoured.

However, amid the relief there was growing anxiety about the fate of the Longhope lifeboat. She was spotted by the Pentland Skerries lighthousekeepers around 9.30 pm, but radio contact with the TGB had been lost an hour or so after she launched. As those ashore clung ever more desperately to the hope that it was just a radio fault, a massive air, sea and land search operation got under way. It continued all through the night and into the following day until, shortly after 1 pm, the Thurso lifeboat sent word that it had found the upturned TGB four miles west of Tor Ness Point on Hoy.

Precisely what happened will never be known, but a fatal accident inquiry in June 1969 heard evidence that it was likely that the mountainous seas broke two windows in the front of the wheelhouse, allowing water to rush in. The coxswain was swept from the wheel and so lost control of the boat, which then went broadside to the sea and capsized. The vessel was towed to Scrabster harbour where it was righted, and the bodies of Dan Kirkpatrick and six of his crew were retrieved. Sadly, Jim Swanson’s body was never recovered.

Needless to say, expressions of sympathy, condolence and support were quick to flood in from all over the country and all parts of the globe. An appeal fund for the families soon exceeded £100,000, and the funeral and memorial services in Longhope and St Magnus cathedral drew thousands of mourners and well-wishers.

However, as The Orcadian reported,

"The whole of Orkney sorrows over this terrible calamity, but only in Brims itself and Longhope can the utter tragedy of it be felt".

Brims is a small township that, at the time, numbered 30 people. The catastrophic loss of a quarter of its population at one stroke is quite unimaginable. More than that, the eight men who lost their lives included two fathers, each with two sons on board, which prompted the local MP Jo Grimond to question whether the RNLI should be allowing fathers and their sons to be going out on the same lifeboat on such operations. All told, the community of Brims was left with seven widows and 10 fatherless children.

However, as Howard Hazell explains in his fascinating account of events,

"there was no recrimination or bitterness from anyone who’d lost their menfolk."

He quotes Margaret Kirkpatrick, who was married to Dan for 29 years. She said:

“I have no regret about the boat being lost on its way to help others, because that is why it was there.”

She added,

“I am happy that the lives of the crew of the Irene have been saved”.

Later that year, Margaret was named Scotswoman of the year at a ceremony in Glasgow.

Her sentiments were shared by the rest of the community in Brims and Longhope, who were anxious that the lifeboat be replaced without delay. When that happened in August 1970, albeit initially on a temporary basis, local lifeboat secretary Jackie Groat said:

“the arrival of another boat is what we have been working and waiting for. It is already bringing a new outlook to the community and a much needed uplift. With no lifeboat here we have felt something vital missing in our midst.”

Fast forward 50 years, and how fitting it is that Kevin Kirkpatrick carries the mantle of coxswain. I am in no doubt at all that his grandfather, Dan, and his father and uncle would have been proud beyond belief. It just so happens that Kevin’s wife, Karen, like her husband, also lost her grandfather, father and uncle in the tragedy. Perhaps unsurprisingly, their son, Jack, and daughter, Stella, are crew members in Kirkwall and Longhope respectively. It is clearly in the blood.

Looking ahead to the commemorations this weekend, they will be an opportunity to reflect, pay tribute and give thanks. As Kevin Kirkpatrick has said:

“What happened that night is part of our history. We want to mark the 50th anniversary as we want to remember them, probably in a quiet way as that is normally the way we do it.”

Ahead of the commemorations, I am delighted that Longhope lifeboat museum is being refurbished, following a remarkable public response to an appeal for donations. It really is a wonderful facility.

Seventeen months after the fatal capsizing, as the TGB returned to service in County Donegal, a memorial to the eight men who lost their lives was unveiled by the Queen Mother. At the ceremony, the Rev Ewan Traill spoke powerfully of the disaster and its victims. He said:

“These men were not saints, but essentially they were good men. They had qualities, which constituted greatness. As a crew, they were unsurpassed anywhere in the world for efficiency, judgment, for loyalty and for courage.”

Inscribed on the base of the memorial are these words:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that he lays down his life for his fellow men”.

They were truly the heroes of Longhope. I am pleased that Parliament has a chance to honour them today, and I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions.

I thank Liam McArthur for lodging the motion for this members’ business debate. As soon as I saw it, I knew that I wanted to speak in the debate.

I remember the tragedy very well, and all the media sources in our house being on for any update about it. That was because my uncle—I think that his job title would have been chief engineer of the RNLI—had the job of going around all the lifeboat stations in the northern half of Scotland to check the lifeboats’ seaworthiness and to give them regular services. He knew all the lifeboatmen particularly well, as he was an Orkney man himself. With the name Alec Cursiter, it was obvious that he was an Orkney man. He was from Stromness.

I remember us listening for any update that we could get about the Longhope lifeboat disaster, and I remember my uncle being very badly affected by it. As I said, he knew all the crew very well because he had been born and brought up in Orkney, although he lived in Aberdeen at that time. He had to dash up to Orkney. I remember seeing him on television a few hours after the tragedy, while people were waiting for news of what had happened to the lifeboat. As Liam McArthur said, there has been a Longhope lifeboat in Orkney since 1874, so the TGB was replaced very quickly after the tragedy.

Many members of the Brims community were affected by the disaster. Shortly afterwards—within the year—there was a similar disaster when the Fraserburgh lifeboat was lost one wintry January morning while responding to a call to assist a Danish fishing vessel. It seems that the same thing happened to that lifeboat, so the two tragedies led to the design of lifeboats being changed shortly afterwards, so that they were self-righting vessels. Fortunately, the number of RNLI and lifeboat disasters has reduced significantly since then, but it is unfortunate that it was those disasters that led to new vessels being designed.

It is important to remember that the RNLI is a voluntary organisation. I take my hat off to all the people who are prepared to put their lives at risk in pursuit of helping others. We should never forget that, and we should donate to the RNLI whenever we can.

I thank Liam McArthur for lodging the motion for debate in Parliament. It is on a matter of great poignancy for our islands.

On 17 March 1969, if you looked out across the Pentland Firth, you would see a broad strait that had, for several days, been battered by gales, lashed by heavy rain and had snow hurled across it by the winds. My home overlooks the island of Hoy, with Longhope tucked behind. I have often seen how changeable that environment can be—the tides are among the fastest and strongest anywhere on earth. That energy, which today we recognise as a power source to be harnessed, makes for an inhospitable climate for seafarers.

That night, the lifeboatmen who set out to assist another vessel—the Irene—did not come home. Their boat was of wooden construction and very different to the lifeboats of today. Such vessels were strong, but unlike many modern lifeboats, they could not self-right if they capsized.

Visibility at the time was virtually nil and the waves were 60 feet high. As day broke, lifeboats from Kirkwall, Stronsay, Stromness and Thurso searched the area. The bodies of all but one of Longhope’s lifeboatmen were recovered, still with their boat. The eighth man, James Swanson, was never found. The islands mourned.

Among the names of those eight men lost, we see three Johnstons—James, Robert and Robert—and three Kirkpatricks, who were Dan, Jack and Ray. Eric McFadyen was the final name of those who died. Orkney is a small place. Such tragedies are felt not just in the homes and in the streets, but across our islands. For those two families, the tragedy must have been hardly bearable. As Liam McArthur said, the population of Brims, the small community on Hoy where the lifeboat was launched, was decimated.

Nevertheless, even today, we find the relatives of those men still faithfully serving the RNLI in Orkney. Today, another Kirkpatrick—Kevin—serves as coxswain at the Longhope lifeboat station. He lost his father, grandfather and uncle that night. However, as he says,

“being in the lifeboat is a way of life. It is in us, it is my blood”.

My home overlooks Scapa Flow, which is one of the world’s great natural harbours. When bad weather threatens, it is a refuge, even for some of the largest ships in the world. Anyone who stands on the cliffs at Yesnaby or travels to the south isles in a storm will understand just how ferocious the seas around Orkney can be. No-one who lives in an island community like Orkney needs to be persuaded of the importance of the RNLI. It is part and parcel of the heritage of the islands and touches so many of us directly. When I was young, my mother chaired the local ladies’ lifeboat guild. From an early age, I helped fundraising efforts to support the work of lifeboats in Orkney. More important was that I learned of the commitment of the men, and of their sacrifice and bravery.

We acknowledge the bravery of those men today—not just on that ill-fated voyage, but in every other launch when they put their lives in danger to help and rescue others. That night was not the first night on which a Longhope lifeboat crew was far from home in challenging weather conditions, and it was not the last. Today, there is still a lifeboat at Longhope, well over two centuries since it was inaugurated. The crew faces the same conditions that Orcadian lifeboat crews have battled time and again, over the centuries.

Outside Orkney, lifeboat stations can be found at many other coastal and island communities across the British isles. As members have mentioned, those communities also have a long heritage and have had their fair share of tragedies. Still, brave men and women, who are self-funded and mostly volunteers, venture out in the face of grave risks, simply to help others. They share their successes and, when tragedy hits, they mourn together.

That is why it is fitting that, to mark the 50th anniversary, the RNLI flag will fly at half-mast at the organisation’s headquarters in Poole. It will also be lowered at lifeboat stations around the country. As always, the crews will remain on call, ready to respond, as they have for centuries. That is the most fitting tribute to those eight men from Orkney, who did not come home.

I, too, congratulate Liam McArthur on securing the debate, and on his moving tribute. He has brought the Longhope lifeboat disaster to the attention of Parliament a number of times and it is therefore fitting that he marks its 50th anniversary here.

The disaster devastated Hoy, especially the small community of Brims, which experienced such a great loss. Eight people lost to a small community not only creates heartbreak but can break a community. The people who were lost were essential to their communities not only for their work on the lifeboat; they had other roles to fulfil.

To lose a quarter of your community in one night is difficult to come back from, and it is a testament to the strength of those who remained that they have supported the families and gone on to provide a fitting tribute to those who were lost. The personal loss was enormous, too, as we have heard. To lose one family member is tragic; to lose generations is unimaginable.

The events surrounding the tragedy are well known. As others have said, the crew of the TGB did what all lifeboat crews do when they responded to the call for help from the Irene. There was a storm and the Irene was adrift in the Pentland Firth, a notoriously dangerous stretch of water. The conditions were atrocious and on the way home the lifeboat capsized. It is not clear what happened, because all hands were lost.

The tragedy brings home to us the sacrifice that is made by those who provide voluntary emergency services. Lifeboat crews and mountain rescue teams are very similar, given the dangers that they face while doing what is largely voluntary work. They love the sea or the mountains and that motivates them to do that work.

Since the tragedy, lifeboats have been developed to be self-righting, as Maureen Watt said. If they capsize they will right themselves, so the people in the boat have a chance of survival. That makes their lifesaving work a little safer for them, but it remains extremely dangerous. Trying to get close to other vessels in high seas and being out on deck in perilous conditions is still putting their own lives at risk. It is therefore right that we mark with this debate the sacrifice not just of those lost on the TGB but of all those lost trying to save others.

I also pay tribute to the work of the community in Orkney, which has more than achieved its target for the maintenance and repair of the Longhope lifeboat museum. That is a memorial to the crew of the TGB and other brave lifeboat crews. The target was a lot more than the amount that the community originally had to raise to establish the museum, but they have achieved it. There is also a memorial in the Kirkhope cemetery among the graves of those who died that night.

As Liam McArthur said, the TGB was recovered and towed into Scrabster by another crew. I can only imagine how they felt. Although they recover crew and boats as part of their normal activities, doing that for your own must be very difficult. What also seems strange to me and difficult to contemplate is that the TGB returned to service in Ireland. I wonder how the lifeboat crews sailing on her felt. That said, she continued to provide a lifesaving service and is now in the Scottish maritime museum in Irvine.

The tragedy led to the RNLI introducing self-righting lifeboats. That means that the crew’s lives were not lost in vain and I am sure that many lives were saved as a result of that development in the design of boats. However, we must never forget the risks that crews continue to face. We use this debate to thank them for that and to thank all the people who volunteer to save lives in very dangerous circumstances.

I congratulate Liam McArthur on bringing the motion to the chamber and on his very fine speech, which was a fitting tribute to the community for which he is the constituency member.

I was 12 years old when the disaster occurred and living in rural Lochaber. Lots of communities had disasters. I recall a multiple fatal accident involving north-east fishermen who were returning home that had a significant impact on the communities there. I also recall the community grief when police officers Detective Sergeant Evan Lumsden and Constable lain Ritchie were killed in the Caledonian canal. They were part of the volunteer Inverness burgh police sub-aqua team that was searching the canal locks for a missing person. Both officers became trapped and lost their lives.

It was a matter of only four months later, on 17 March 1969, that the Longhope disaster occurred. Members have vividly outlined the circumstances of the capsizing of the vessel that was going to the aid of the Liberian vessel and of its entire crew losing their lives.

Communities deal with tragedies in different ways and a lot of people were affected by that tragedy. Until I spoke to a member of my staff, Linda, I was not aware that her father-in-law, Ian Williamson, was the policeman there. There were also medical professionals and coastguards there, so the effects would have been wide-ranging.

Earlier this year, the Parliament held a debate on the centenary of the Iolaire disaster, and many members commented on how the communities in Lewis and Harris dealt with grief, which was by not talking about it. What is apparent is that those communities were never the same again, which is the same in Orkney.

A number of members alluded to the weather conditions at the time of the disaster. There was a force 9 gale, near zero visibility and a spring tide that resulted in waves more than 60 feet high. I have reflected on that, because 60 feet is two and a half times the height of a house, which is an astonishing statistic.

Members have talked about a positive outcome of the disaster, which was the design change for the vessels, which are now self-righting.

I am a big fan of the Canadian folk musician Gordon Lightfoot. Members might be familiar with the song “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald”, which was about a similar and much celebrated tragedy in the Great Lakes in 1975. At his concerts, he often talks about how many vessels perished the same year—48 ships were lost—although only one is remembered in that song. In Longhope, there is a unique situation in that the community will not allow the circumstances of the loss to be forgotten.

Maureen Watt talked about people keeping abreast of the news. People today struggle to understand that there was not the same flow of news that there is now. Then, the news came from radio, television—to a lesser extent—and newspapers.

We occupy islands off the coast of continental Europe and we have many treacherous waters. However, there are none more treacherous than the Pentland Firth, which is why we seek to harness it. We need volunteers at sea and on land to support that, and I am sure that those who lost their lives would be proud of their descendants for continuing that work.

I was brought up in a household that placed great significance on helping others and valued public service and efforts for the common good. The men at Longhope and their successors in the RNLI there, and elsewhere, display all that is best about humanity. Their legacy lives on and I thank Orkney’s constituency MSP, Liam McArthur, for giving Parliament the opportunity to remember their sacrifice. The tragic loss of life and the community’s loss will not be forgotten.

I thank Liam McArthur for bringing forward this debate. Like other members, I pay my respects to those men who lost their lives in March 1969. My thoughts go to their descendants and to the community of Brims in Longhope, on the island of Hoy.

They say that time is a healer, but many local communities who experience such tragedies never quite heal. Having seen the heartfelt commemorations in Lewis recently for the Iolaire tragedy, which John Finnie mentioned, it is abundantly clear to me that no community ever truly recovers from such a tragedy, however distant in the past, and tight-knit island and coastal communities seem especially affected.

As Liam McArthur might know, I stood as a candidate in Orkney and Shetland in the 2015 election—unsuccessfully, clearly. It might be an obvious point to make, but, in that election campaign, the importance of the sea in Orkney was brought home to me. Travelling across the islands and speaking to locals, I heard that the sea is very much part of people’s lives, whether they work offshore in oil and gas, are part of the fishing fleet or are on call to go out in a lifeboat to potentially save lives. Clearly, the sea poses dangers as well as many rewards.

I join other members in paying tribute to those who work on our seas and, in the context of the debate, to the RNLI, including the thousands of people who volunteer. RNLI-operated lifeboat crews provide a 24-hour rescue service in the United Kingdom, and they have saved more than 142,000 lives since 1824.

The RNLI also provides education to local communities. Its community safety teams explain the risks and share safety knowledge with anyone going out to sea or to the coast, and the organisation supports people around the world to prevent drowning in areas where there is a high risk.

I am sure that, when we are out and about in our local communities, many of us—probably all of us—find that it is rare that we do not see an RNLI sticker on a car window or on someone’s door. Such is the public support for the RNLI. As Maureen Watt said, it is important that we support that terrific organisation in any way that we can.

Maureen Watt mentioned that it was heartening to find that one of the lessons that was learned following the disaster was the need for the development of self-righting lifeboats. They prevented the loss of life in 1979, when two vessels, from Barra and Islay respectively, were deployed to respond to emergencies. Both capsized, only to successfully right again with no loss of life to the crew.

As with all maritime disasters, it is right and fitting that we remember those who put their lives at risk. I was very moved by the fact that, as Liam McArthur said in his speech, Kevin Kirkpatrick, the grandson of one of the people who perished, now volunteers for the lifeboat crew. I am delighted to hear that some of the descendants of the eight crewmen will remember them by playing the song “The Heroes of Longhope” at the commemoration—what a fitting tribute.

I thank Liam McArthur again for securing this debate to allow MSPs across the chamber to join with the community of Brims in Longhope on Hoy, and to remember those courageous men who were, so sadly, taken away.

I begin by joining the members who have congratulated Liam McArthur on bringing this debate to the chamber. It is entirely fitting that Scotland’s Parliament should set aside time to reflect on the night of 17 March 1969 and the Longhope tragedy and—alongside that—have an opportunity to highlight the heroism of the crews of the RNLI.

I pay tribute to Mr McArthur for his moving opening speech and to others for their thoughtful contributions. The 50th anniversary of that dreadful tragedy, in which eight men lost their lives while trying to save the crew of the SS Irene—coxswain Daniel Kirkpatrick; second coxswain James Johnston; bowman Ray Kirkpatrick; mechanic Robert Johnston; assistant mechanic James Swanson; and crewmen Jack Kirkpatrick, Robert Johnston and Eric McFadyen—serves to remind us all of the price that has been paid by our coastal communities in helping seafarers in peril, because it is from the ranks of the ordinary men and women who live in the communities that are dotted around the coastline that RNLI crews are drawn.

It is a hugely laudable and frankly staggering statistic that, over the 195 years since the formation of the National Institution for the Preservation of Life from Shipwreck—as it was originally titled—the RNLI has saved more than 142,000 lives, as Donald Cameron highlighted. Alongside that sits the sobering statistic that 778 crew have paid the ultimate price while seeking to rescue fellow mariners. Behind that second figure lie so many tragedies that have devastated the communities that crewed the lifeboats concerned.

Maureen Watt reminded us of the Fraserburgh lifeboat disaster. My constituency was touched by another such event, in the loss, 65 years ago, of the Robert Lindsay lifeboat, which was based in Arbroath, as it returned to harbour from a rescue mission. Six crew perished and the tragedy remains woven into the fabric of the port and, indeed, the county. So, too, with the tiny, 30-strong community of Brims in Longhope, which suffered the loss of a quarter of its population with the capsizing of the TGB in 1969.

The Longhope tragedy was made particularly awful by the close and lasting family connections within the crew. As we have heard, there will be a commemoration of the tragedy on Sunday 17 March at the Longhope bay museum. As Liam McArthur revealed, the organisation of the commemoration has been led by Kevin Kirkpatrick, coxswain of the current Longhope lifeboat, who lost his father, uncle and grandfather on the night of the tragedy. Kevin’s wife, Karen, lost her grandfather and uncle as well—two families as well as a small community left utterly and unimaginably devastated.

The RNLI calls its crew members

“ordinary people doing extraordinary things.”

That is right. When conditions are of a type from which most of us would retreat, the RNLI crews head straight into them, because someone is in peril and needs help. The comparisons with mountain rescue services that Rhoda Grant drew—and perhaps those with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—are obvious. That point was reinforced for me last year when I joined the current Arbroath lifeboat crew for a joint training exercise with the local fire and rescue team. Those are two different emergency services, but there is a degree of commonality around the circumstances in which they are so often called into action.

Like any charity, the RNLI is heavily dependent on fundraising and donation. It is pleasing that Scottish Government officials have a long-lasting and continuing commitment to supporting an official civil service charity called the Communications and Public Service Lifeboat Fund. The fund started in 1866, when a handful of civil servants decided that they wanted to buy a lifeboat for the RNLI and raised the £300 that it took to do so then. All moneys raised by the fund since then have gone to help the RNLI’s life-saving work.

Down the years, the charity has supported the purchase of 53 lifeboats as well as crew kit, the provision of lifeguard training and the refurbishing of lifeboat stations. The public service charity is the RNLI’s longest-standing supporter. The fund celebrated its 150th anniversary by raising £1.1 million for a Shannon class lifeboat—the RNLI’s latest design—with the efforts of Scottish Government staff contributing more than any other single Government body.

That has been followed by a new appeal, which aims to reduce drowning in Scotland, the UK and overseas. Here in Scotland, children and young people are being helped to stay safe in and around water through a project in Fife, where RNLI lifeguarding is also being supported through the on-going appeal.

The nature of the RNLI’s role has evolved over its 195-year history, but the selflessness, courage and dedication that ran through the crew of the TGB when it set off that fateful day remain the characteristics demanded of crews today.

In marking the 50th anniversary of the Longhope lifeboat disaster, which Liam McArthur has afforded us the opportunity to do today, let us acknowledge, as Rhoda Grant called on us to do, the enormous debt owed to those who put themselves at risk to assist seafarers in trouble around Scotland’s mainland coast and islands.

I thank all members for their contributions to the debate.

The next item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead. It is an update on the impact of Brexit on the Scottish further and higher education sectors. I encourage members who wish to ask a question of the minister to press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as they can.

It has been 994 days since the European Union referendum. Yet, as we all know, because Westminster and the United Kingdom Government remain engulfed in chaos, we still do not have any clarity as to where Scotland and the UK will be in 15 days’ time. It happens to be science week, and I remind Parliament that our scientific and research excellence is going to be disproportionately harmed by Brexit. I will outline the Scottish Government’s latest understanding of what Brexit means for our further and higher education sectors more generally. I assure colleagues that we are doing all that we can to ensure that our colleges and universities continue to thrive.

As I was reminded on my visit to the University of Strathclyde yesterday and on my visit to the University of the West of Scotland this morning, any visit to such an institution brings home the international character of our campuses. Some of the best brains in Europe choose to study and work in Scotland, and EU researchers are driving forward our science and innovation. It is utter madness that the United Kingdom Government is willing to damage that success and the rich cultural vein that adds so much to student and academic life in Scotland and to our economy. I say to our EU staff and students directly: you are welcome here, you are valued members of our community in Scotland and we want you to remain.

There can be no good Brexit. For many people, it is a deeply personal and emotive issue. At a recent event at the University of the Highlands and Islands, I met Florence, who is originally from Hamburg. At the question-and-answer event, as she was asking me a question, she broke down in tears because of Brexit. Florence is one of the many people who have chosen to come and live, work and build lives here, in Scotland. Nobody should be made to feel that way. It is completely unacceptable, and the UK Government’s botched handling of the entire Brexit process is to blame.

The UK Government’s stance threatens the continued success of our colleges and universities. It means a loss of talent; a loss of access to EU programmes, reducing opportunities for student mobility, research collaborations and funding; and a loss of reputation on the global stage. All of that is made much worse by the UK Government’s draconian approach to immigration. For instance, the proposed £30,000 earning threshold will prevent a majority of early-career researchers from coming to the UK. The recent announcement of an exemption for PhD-level jobs from the UK immigration threshold is a welcome and necessary but small first step by the UK Government. Much more needs to be done.

In a stunning display of just how little the UK Government knows or cares about Scotland, its proposed temporary leave-to-remain scheme would fall short of covering students who are studying for a four-year degree in Scotland. To suggest that EU students will have to apply for a visa for a further year—to make it up to four years—at a cost of up to £840 is an outrage. That proposal must be dropped immediately. I have raised those issues with my UK counterpart, Chris Skidmore, and today I am seeking a meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland—if he is still in post—requesting his urgent intervention on the issue. Throughout my meetings with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations, I have emphasised Scotland’s distinct needs, including by calling for the reintroduction of the post-study work visa and full participation in programmes such as Erasmus+.

The European Commission’s recent emergency regulation on the Erasmus programme is very welcome. It allows current Erasmus students to complete their studies abroad regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and shows a degree of leadership that is sorely lacking from the UK Government. However, that regulation applies only to current Erasmus students and, as I said, much more needs to be done. If there is no deal, Erasmus funding is in jeopardy for all students who are involved in work or study placements across Europe from 29 March onwards. In the next few weeks, I will travel to London to meet Mr Skidmore again to raise that issue, among others.

Throughout the past few months, I have consulted extensively with the sectors. Last November, I convened the first ever joint sector Brexit summit to discuss the expected impact of Brexit. I want to build on that and have asked the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to host another summit next month.

There are some immediate challenges that we are addressing as a matter of urgency. Depending on whether and how the UK leaves the EU, UK citizens who are studying for full degrees in the EU may suddenly find themselves liable for international student fees, medical care and travel insurance. Our estimates suggest that hundreds of students may be affected. Facing untenable increases in costs, many of those students—perhaps even the vast majority of them—may simply have to come back to Scotland. Their studies will have been cut short and they will come home with no degree and their dreams destroyed—all because of a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. That damage will have been compounded by the UK Government’s botched handling of the process.

The Scottish Government has been working urgently with the sector to prepare for students returning to Scotland and to minimise any disruption to their studies. The Student Awards Agency for Scotland has provided clear information and guidance for such students on its website, which will guide them in transferring to a Scottish institution if that becomes necessary. I reassure those students that, if they left Scotland to study in the EU and Brexit means that they are forced to give up their studies, we guarantee to provide student support and tuition fees to students who are eligible to enable them to study in Scotland. That is a guarantee that they can bank on in these uncertain times.

We are also taking action to consider longer-term rights for Scottish citizens who are living in the EU to access further and higher education student support. That will ensure that eligible citizens residing in the EU, the European Economic Area and Switzerland post-Brexit can return to Scotland to study in the future and will be able to access the same support that they are currently eligible for. Members will know that, in respect of EU students who are currently studying here or thinking of studying here, we have already committed to providing tuition fees for eligible EU students who are commencing their studies in academic year 2019-20 for the duration of their course. That guarantee will remain in the event of a no-deal Brexit. We are also in active discussions with the sectors about how we might support students beyond that period.

As well as attracting talented EU citizens, our university research is successful in attracting funding from horizon 2020, the EU’s flagship competitive research and innovation funding programme. A country’s attractiveness as a place in which to do research is fundamentally dependent on that country’s access to international schemes. Since horizon 2020 launched, in 2014, more than €558 million in funding for research and innovation has been secured by Scottish organisations. However, we are already beginning to see worrying evidence of the damage that we are facing. Catherine Heymans, a renowned professor of astrophysics at the University of Edinburgh, is shifting the majority of her research activities to the University of Bonn, and she has confirmed that Brexit is the reason behind her move. Ninety per cent of her research funding has been provided by the EU, and Professor Heymans does not believe that that funding would be replaced were she to remain in the UK. The latest figures show that the total share of UK and Scottish participations in horizon 2020 projects is falling, and our researchers tell us that EU partners who would have wished to collaborate are avoiding doing so with partners in the UK due to the on-going uncertainty.

The Scottish Government is seeking to provide much-needed clarity where we can and to represent fully the interests of our staff and researchers in our negotiations with the UK Government. To provide just one example, we have demanded that more information be urgently provided concerning the UK Government’s review, by the Alan Turing Institute, of UK alternatives to horizon Europe.

My officials and I, along with the Scottish funding council, are having regular discussions with the sectors in Scotland on those and other issues. That includes liaising with staff and researchers on issues that affect them directly. We want to understand their concerns and to support them in any way that we can. I have, of course, taken those concerns directly to the European Commission, when appropriate. Last December, I led a delegation representing Scotland’s research interests to Brussels, where we highlighted our world-leading credentials and continuing desire to work with European partners and benefit from European funding streams.

This week, the Deputy First Minister and I met the chair and chief executive of UK Research and Innovation. If UKRI is going to play a role in plugging some of the gap in research funding left by Brexit, we need Scotland to benefit and devolution to matter.

Much of my time and that of my officials is now being taken up by considering how best to respond to the challenges and threats of Brexit. Beyond the examples that I have highlighted, much work is being progressed across the Scottish Government, from resilience planning and external communications to meetings with stakeholders and the UK Government.

I am pleased to confirm that, today, we have published our Brexit action plan, highlighting the broad scope of activity that we are currently engaged in across my portfolio. I will write to each of our college and university principals to highlight that and to continue the dialogue that we have established with the sector on the impact of Brexit.

In closing, I emphasise that the Scottish Government will continue to do everything we can to protect Scotland’s interests in a challenging and uncertain context. We recognise and value the enormous contributions that EU citizens make to our universities, our colleges and our nation, and we will, of course, continue to make the case—passionately—for the benefits of EU membership.

I thank the minister for prior sight of his statement. Members in the chamber are well aware that the Scottish Conservatives have expressed considerable concerns about some of the challenges resulting from Brexit and I put on record that I have some sympathy for the comments within the minister’s statement.

Notwithstanding that and the on-going uncertainty about the final Brexit outcome, some areas of responsibility lie with the Scottish Government and it is on those areas that I will ask the minister two questions, if I may.

First, Universities Scotland has been clear about its concerns regarding the future fee status of EU students. We welcome the commitment that the minister has made on that with regard to the academic year 2019-20, but I note that, in his statement, he also said that the Scottish Government is looking at what might happen beyond that period. Will he update members on when the Scottish Government will confirm its policy choice on the fee status of EU students for courses beginning in academic year 2020-21 and beyond?

Secondly, assuming that Brexit will mean that Scottish and EU students will no longer be treated as groups with reciprocal rights to equal treatment, is it the intention of the Scottish Government to commit to retaining the £90 million or so that it currently spends on EU students and putting that back into the higher education sector? As the minister will know, Universities Scotland has made a strong call for that commitment to be made.

I thank Liz Smith for the spirit in which she asked her questions.

On her first point, which was in relation to the status of EU students and the guarantee that we have given to pay their fees for academic year 2019-20, as I said in my statement, we continue to reflect on what the outcome of the current shambolic process at Westminster might be for Scotland and the UK’s status in the European Union after the end of this month.

There are a number of issues for us to take into account. First, there is the disruption to our institutions if the thousands of EU students studying and playing a vital role in our colleges and universities were suddenly to become international students. We do not know the extent of the disruption in respect of those who intend to come and study at our universities and colleges, but there would be an element of disruption there.

Secondly, if we were to pay the fees of EU students in the following academic year, which we are being called to provide clarity on now, we must note that the students’ current status would not allow them to work in Scotland. I hope that we all agree that that would be wholly unacceptable, which is why we need powers over post-study work visas and other aspects of immigration. I believe that there is cross-party consensus on that in this Parliament. With such powers, we could take the right decisions with regard to EU students, so that they could make a contribution to Scottish society if they chose to come and live in this country.

The number 1 factor on which we need clarity is the outcome of the votes this week in Westminster. We want some sensible decisions made in that absolutely chaotic process.

We will also reflect on Liz Smith’s second point, which is about the money that would potentially be saved if we were not paying EU fees. We are listening closely to the case that is being put by the further and higher education sectors, but we need clarity from Westminster.

The minister is right to criticise the Tory Government for the chaos and the threat of Brexit. I associate members on the Labour benches with his assurances to EU staff and students that they are valued and welcome here in Scotland.

The Scottish Government did not create this uncertainty—that is for sure—but Ms Smith was right that there are some areas on which the Scottish Government must provide the required clarity and I fear that, in response to her questions, that clarity was not forthcoming.

I will return to the points that are critical for universities.

Does the minister understand that university prospectuses for 2020-21 are out now, so potential EU students need to have some certainty about their fee status? Active discussion is not enough; some clarity, at least, could be given about that aspect of studying in Scotland. Will not the minister simply give the guarantee that students need and which Universities Scotland is asking for about their tuition fee status? I take the minister’s point about other things being less clear, but on that, at least, clarity could be given.

The same applies to the resources that are currently spent on tuition fees for EU students, which amount to around £90 million. The university sector is simply asking for a guarantee that, if less than that amount is required for that purpose—whether all of it or some of it—the resource will not be removed from the higher education sector. That is a simple thing to ask the Government to commit to, especially with FE and HE facing such uncertainty.

My last point is: will the minister explain to us why the Government thought that this was a good year in which to cut college and university funding in the budget?

On Iain Gray’s demand for clarity, he should be asking not this Parliament or this Government for clarity on what is happening with regard to Brexit; he should be asking the UK Conservative Government for clarity, given the chaos that is happening at Westminster this week alone. Let us get clarity on what is happening down there to enable us to take proper decisions for the future of further and higher education here in Scotland—indeed, he could ask the leader of his own party, Jeremy Corbyn, for some clarity on his position on Brexit at the same time.

We are well aware of the potential impacts on EU students in Scotland if there is a departure from the EU without any deal. However, this week of all weeks, we must absolutely focus on getting the right decision for EU students in Scotland, which is our continued membership of the European Union and, failing that, a good deal that enables the good arrangements that we have with other European countries to continue.

We are in serious talks with the further and higher education sectors about all the various scenarios that might happen over the coming weeks and months and about the potential impact that those might have on further and higher education. We will take a decision that maintains our links with Europe and does what is best for the future of Scotland’s students and our further and higher education institutions.

Like colleagues, I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and the work that the Government is doing to try to limit the damage from someone else’s crisis.

Specifically in relation to Erasmus+, as it stands, if Brexit goes ahead, we will lose both our right to freedom of movement and the UK’s membership of the Erasmus+ programme. We could, in theory, participate as a third country, but that is not the same as being a member of Erasmus+. This Parliament has taken evidence from colleges and youth clubs, which , in particular, have made the point that, without freedom of movement, the administrative burden of trying to participate in the programme is simply too much.

Therefore, what work is the Scottish Government doing to support those who benefit most from participation in the programme, namely, our college students and those who are involved through youth programmes?

Ross Greer highlights the huge contribution that Erasmus makes to the experience of Scottish students and—indeed—the experience of EU students who come to study in Scotland for a short time through Erasmus.

We have made the strongest representations to the UK Government on the UK and Scotland continuing to have full participation in Erasmus+. We want to see the UK Government adopt that position and put it into practice as soon as possible.

That is not its position just now; we have a lack of commitment. Therefore, there is a real danger that if we leave Europe without a deal on 29 March, Scotland’s participation and the disproportionate benefits that we get from Erasmus—because, per head of population, far more students from Scotland participate in Erasmus compared with the number who participate from the rest of the UK—will be jeopardised. Losing out on Erasmus would disproportionately harm Scotland and would, of course, damage the experience of EU students at the same time.

The situation just now is that leaving without a deal, will—as I said—clearly jeopardise the position of Scottish students. As I mentioned, we have a guarantee, which I welcome, from the European Commission that current students who are in Europe as part of Erasmus will—irrespective of whether there is no deal or a deal at the end of this month—be able to continue with and complete their programme in Europe. That is welcome.

However, we need the support of the UK Government to put the funding guarantees in place and ensure that we get full participation in Erasmus+ going forward.

I, too, have sympathy for the minister given the lack of clarity that is being caused by what is currently going on. However, it is a bit puzzling why an action plan has been produced that cannot have many actions in it because of the lack of clarity. Therefore, I will perhaps ask my question another way around.

Catriona Mullay is a Shetlander who is studying at the European University Institute in Florence—in other words, she is a Scot who has travelled to Europe for her studies. She is a postgraduate student and is just about to enter a PhD there. She does not know what the situation with her fees will be from March—she does not even know whether she will be able to undertake her PhD. The Scottish Government has looked at statutory instruments, which were produced in London. Is the minister in a position to update Parliament on those and on the position for students in the kind of circumstances in which Catriona finds herself, where there is no certainty about her future study and no certainty about the fees for what she is currently undertaking? We will potentially lose having a Scot who would have gained valuable international experience studying overseas, as she might have to come back to Scotland.

Just as Tavish Scott expressed his sympathy for the position that I find myself in as Scotland’s further and higher education minister, I express my sympathy for the position that Mr Scott’s constituent, Catriona Mullay, finds herself in, because many Scots have benefited from attending the European University Institute.

I have written to the UK Government on that issue in the last week or two and have expressed my deep concern about the impact of Brexit on Scottish students’ ability to participate in the European University Institute. I have asked for action to be taken to allow participation in the institute and the flow of benefits to Scotland to continue.

In a separate letter, we wrote to the UK Government expressing our unhappiness with the approach taken to the statutory instruments designed to enable the UK to withdraw from the European University Institute. I will update the member on the outcome of that as soon as I can.

Last week, I attended the celebration of EU researchers in this Parliament, during which seven of our world-class universities demonstrated some of the work that they are doing and showed how important horizon 2020 is to Scotland’s attractiveness as a research destination. We already have a reputation for producing world-class research, some of which I am sure will be celebrated in the debate this afternoon. We also know that that research has been strengthened by EU citizens who work in Scotland, and by our membership of the European Union. What can the minister do to protect research collaboration with Europe?

Clare Adamson highlights such an important issue: the impact not only on researchers and students at Scottish institutions, but on the future of the Scottish economy. This morning I was at the University of the West of Scotland, where I spoke to students—many of whom were international and European students—who are involved in a £15 million programme that looks at the impact of 5G and involves a number of European countries. That is a European programme with European research money, of which we will be unable to take future advantage if we leave the EU with no deal.

As I mentioned in my statement, we are in close discussion with UKRI about Scotland’s ability to get UK research funding in the future, should that organisation try to fill the gap that would be left if we lost out on European programmes. I say again that if we leave the EU, the loss of horizon 2020 will have a disproportionate impact on Scotland, because we do better out of that programme than any other part of the UK. The best way to protect that is to continue our EU membership or to get a good deal that would allow our full participation in horizon 2020 to continue.

We have a guarantee from the UK Government that, irrespective of what will happen at the end of this month, any contract signed will be honoured up until 2020. However, I have been told that that commitment only covers part of horizon 2020 and that up to €50 million a year of research funding is not included in it. Once again, the UK Government has an unacceptable approach that does not recognise the importance of horizon 2020 to Scottish institutions or the Scottish economy.

Despite many points of contention in the minister’s statement, which Liz Smith has already commented on, the Scottish Conservatives have sympathy with and welcome the minister’s highlighting of horizon 2020. Will he at least join me in supporting the UK Government’s pledge to underwrite payments to the universities participating in horizon 2020?

As I have just said, we have very limited guarantees on the future participation of Scotland and the UK in horizon 2020, and that is simply not good enough. The UK Treasury is carrying out a value for money exercise before it takes further decisions on our future participation—with or without a deal. Scotland should be involved in that process, because we are the biggest beneficiary of horizon 2020, and the Scottish Government is enormously frustrated with its limited input to that value for money exercise and with the limited information that we are getting back from it. We know that horizon 2020 research funding is enormously valuable to Scotland; international collaboration and amazing initiatives are taking place across the length and breadth of Scotland’s colleges, universities and research institutions. We cannot afford to lose that, so I ask all parties to urge the UK Government to give us the guarantees that we require.

Last July, in a statement about the loss of horizon 2020 funding, the UK Government said:

“The government is working in partnership with UK Research and Innovation to develop a new International Research and Innovation Strategy. The Strategy will further set out our desire to build on the UK’s long tradition of international collaborations in research and innovation across all fields and our openness to international talent.”

There are just two weeks until exit day. Can the minister tell us whether that UK strategy has now been made clear to him and to the university sector and, if it has, what it means for the sector?

Clearly, we are very keen to make sure that Scotland takes maximum advantage of any UK Research and Innovation funds. Members will have noticed that there was an announcement this week of funding for the University of Edinburgh from one of the funds. That is welcome, but we have to remember that those are existing funds, and what we are talking about is European funding over and above those domestic UK funds, which has been worth €0.5 billion to our institutions and research community over the past few years alone. That pot of money is crucial. The international collaboration that is brought with it helps boost Scotland’s international reputation for research and innovation at the same time, which is an important part of this debate. It is about the benefits of soft diplomacy through scientific collaboration as well as the financial benefits. We need a lot more clarity from the UK Government to ensure that Scotland does not lose out should—heaven forbid—there be an exit from the European Union at the end of this month.

Given the potential loss of EU workers in key sectors such as health and social care, what is being done in further and higher education to identify potential gaps and take action to fill them, so that we do not have an absence of skills going forward?

That is an excellent question from James Kelly. At the forefront of my mind is how we ensure that we have the skills required for the future of the Scottish economy, given that we face a reduction in the number of young people through demographic changes in this country. If that were to be compounded by a reduction in the number of EU workers coming to this country, that would be highly damaging to Scotland’s future prospects. That is linked to the Brexit debate and how we work with our universities and colleges.

I reassure James Kelly that this is near the top of the agenda. It is linked to how we fund going forward, because we want to ensure that we address any skills gaps that arise through Brexit as well as other demographic changes. We are speaking to the colleges and universities about that, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is doing a great deal of work on that, and work is being done on skills alignment between all Scotland’s agencies through the Enterprise and Skills Strategic Board. That is very much at the centre of our attention at the moment.

I welcome the measures in the statement, particularly the assurances provided to students and EU nationals involved in the Erasmus+ scheme. I know about that, because I was an Erasmus-Socrates student. I would be grateful if, when the minister meets Mr Skidmore in a few weeks’ time, he could invite him to come to Scotland to speak to EU nationals and institutions in Scotland, including the Jack Kane centre in Edinburgh, which hosted the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee when we did our Erasmus+ inquiry. I am sure that the minister will be aware of that. If Mr Skidmore met students and people from Scotland, I am sure that it would encourage him to provide the assurances that are required about keeping the Erasmus+ scheme.

I know that Stuart McMillan has mentioned before how he benefited from the Erasmus scheme. He is a perfect example of where one can go in life by enriching one’s experience through such schemes. Indeed, I undertook a Carnegie Trust scholarship when I was a student and I travelled to Brussels and Copenhagen as part of my research for my dissertation. It fills me with horror to think that my children might not have the same advantages that I had through freedom of movement and the ability to go to other countries in that way.

Unfortunately, however, I think that Stuart McMillan has missed his opportunity, because Chris Skidmore was here just last week and he visited some institutions in Glasgow. He has told me—as indeed have the Scottish Conservatives today—that he is very sympathetic to the arguments made in relation to Erasmus and horizon 2020 and other dimensions of the Brexit debate. However, even he is reliant on the Home Office, the Treasury and the Prime Minister—and all the chaos at the heart of the Conservative Government—in trying to get some clarity so that he can take the right decisions. That clarity is ultimately what we require in order to get the right decisions for Scotland.

I will continue in the same constructive tone and candour that my colleague Liz Smith used.

In his statement, the minister mentioned announcements that were made in the spring statement yesterday, including the announcement on PhD level occupations being made exempt from the tier 2 visa cap. I could also mention newly updated rules on absences of up to 180 days that concern researchers who conduct fieldwork overseas and then apply to settle in the UK. Will the minister acknowledge—and perhaps welcome—those shifts and the willingness to listen to the concerns from across and outwith this chamber? I do not doubt that the minister is capable of being quite forthcoming in his views at his next meeting with the minister in London.

The changes that were announced yesterday are a small, necessary step forward, which, of course, I welcome, but it is important to convey to the chamber that it is a very small part of a much bigger picture. If we take the £30,000 salary threshold in the UK Government’s immigration policy, any institution will tell us that that will cover a small percentage of the researchers who come from other European countries to study or work in our country. Many earn far below £30,000, and it is not just them who are affected; it is their spouses as well. Researchers might come with a spouse who is on a lower wage than them and they will not be able to get into the country without some difficulty.

Of course, another thing that must be addressed urgently is the fact that temporary leave to remain is granted for three years, not the four years that are needed for the Scottish degree.

I welcome that the issues that the member mentioned are being addressed, but we have a long way to go to prevent the UK Government’s immigration policy from inflicting severe damage on Scottish further and higher education.

Will the minister clarify the action that the Scottish Government has taken—and might take—to support Scottish students who might be unable to complete their studies at an EU university? He mentioned, in particular, fees and medical care. Might we be able to bring about a situation in which they could complete their studies at those EU universities?

Again, with regard to this week’s votes in Westminster, we do not know what is going to happen over the next few weeks in the run-up to the end of the month. However, if there is no deal, Scottish undergraduate students who are studying full time in the EU will become international students and potentially will lose their rights. That could have devastating consequences. If there is no deal, a range of costs could be incurred, which would make it completely untenable and unaffordable for Scottish undergraduate students to continue their studies in EU institutions. Therefore, today, we are keen to emphasise our assurance to them that if—in horrific circumstances—they have to come back to Scotland to continue their studies here, they will be entitled to all the necessary support that Scottish students get. We will make sure that that is made available to them.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-16312, in the name of Ivan McKee, on building on Scotland’s strengths in technology and engineering to become Europe’s leading space nation. I invite all members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about space, the importance of the space sector in Scotland to our economy and the focus that the Scottish Government places on the development of the sector.

These are exciting times for the space industry in Scotland. The sector’s rapid global growth offers huge opportunities, which Scotland is well placed to take advantage of.

Scotland already has an innovative and diverse engineering base, with world-class companies competing in international markets. We have excellence in data science and application and we already punch above our weight in the space sector. We are in a great place to consolidate those existing strengths.

Over two years, we have seen a 27 per cent increase in the number of space organisations in Scotland to more than 130, with a total income of £140 million. They include the headquarters of 83 United Kingdom space industry firms. Nearly a fifth of all UK space jobs are in Scotland—more than double our population share.

On their way into the Parliament building today, people may have seen the Black Arrow rocket parked outside—if they did not, I recommend that they go to have a look. Black Arrow’s third flight was the first, and only, successful UK-led orbital launch. It placed the Prospero satellite into orbit from a launch site in Australia in 1971—the only British satellite to be put into orbit using a British launch vehicle. Prospero is still in orbit, although it is no longer in communication with planet earth. Some may say that it shares that characteristic with some of those currently responsible for the future of the UK’s place in Europe; I could not possibly comment.

At a time when Scotland aims to be the first place in Europe capable of launching small satellites into orbit, it seems fitting that the Black Arrow is now here in Edinburgh, and I congratulate Skyrora—one of Scotland’s rocket manufacturing businesses—on successfully bringing it back to the UK.

When we talk of space, we may think of the massive rocket launches at Cape Canaveral, but the modern space industry comprises much more than space rockets—exciting though they are. We have opportunities in upstream space manufacturing and space operations, including small satellite manufacture, as well as opportunities for companies dealing with downstream space data and data applications.

Looking ahead, we see longer-term potential opportunities emerging, such as energy provision through solar panels in space, asteroid prospecting for minerals, together with the associated supporting habitat facilities, and low-gravity manufacturing in space. Not so long ago, that would all have been considered science fiction, but it is rapidly becoming science fact.

Scotland is proud to be the home of agile space, a versatile and adaptable sector that involves close collaboration between Government, industry and academia. Our culture of open innovation and collaboration is essential for our continuing success.

We have a supportive business environment, with the developing national manufacturing institute for Scotland, real academic strengths, a range of practical support and advice available via our enterprise agencies, and a strong partnership with the sector through the industry-led Scottish space leadership council.

The NMIS will be an industry-led international centre of expertise in manufacturing, which will make Scotland a global leader, with academia, industry and the public sector working together to transform manufacturing skills, productivity and innovation right across Scotland.

Our excellent higher education sector is at the forefront of this technology. Glasgow, Strathclyde, Edinburgh and Dundee universities all have major strengths in the space sector. Edinburgh’s Higgs centre for innovation, which is located at the Royal Observatory, provides a business incubation centre as well as space testing and development facilities. I was at the centre earlier this year, and I thoroughly recommend a visit.

Scotland is very much open for business, and our enterprise agencies will continue to work with any company with a viable proposal that is seeking to develop a future in our successful space sector.

Scotland is already a world leader in small satellite manufacture and we have businesses that analyse and use the valuable data that is beamed back from orbit. The missing link is the ability to launch satellites. Scotland is the best place in the UK to reach in-demand orbits with vertical rockets, and there is a real opportunity to capture a share of the growing market for launching an estimated 2,000 small satellites by 2030.

With more small satellites being built in the city of Glasgow than in any other place in Europe, affordable and efficient access to space is key to growing our fast-developing small satellite industry. Clyde Space is recognised as a world-class innovator and supplier of small satellite systems. Spire Global, the first company in the UK and Europe to provide an end-to-end CubeSat development and data service offering, and Alba Orbital, which is building and launching some of the world’s most advanced picosatellites for earth observation and telecoms purposes, are also based in Glasgow.

Our ambition is to have at least one spaceport in Scotland. Having satellite launch facilities will help us to deliver strong economic benefits and is expected to open up a wide range of market opportunities for Scotland. With launch capability, we can then build, launch and operate satellites, all from Scotland—supporting the ambition to grow the sector here into a £4 billion industry by 2030.

The UK Space Agency’s decision to support the development of space hub Sutherland is key to meeting those aspirations, although, as members will well understand, that is not the only potential spaceport that is being considered. A total funding package of £17.3 million will be invested in the site. Highlands and Islands Enterprise is working hard to deliver on that ambition in partnership with Lockheed Martin Space Systems and Orbex. As the market for small satellites continues to grow, so will the demand for launch facilities, and sites in the Western Isles, the Shetland Islands and at Prestwick are all interested in developing space-related launch activities.

On Friday, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity signed the heads of terms for the Ayrshire growth deal, which includes support for an aerospace and space programme that will benefit from up to £30 million of Scottish Government investment. Through the involvement of partners, that will increase to total investment of up to £80 million.

The aerospace and space sector employs more than 4,000 people in Ayrshire, and we have ambitious plans to help to double that.

What assessment have the minister and the Government made of the Machrihanish airstrip in Campbeltown? The minister will know that, during the second world war, it was the largest airstrip in Europe, and it has great facilities.

As I said, the Scottish Government and its agencies are very keen to hear from any business or other opportunity that would help to grow and further develop the Scottish space sector. I would be interested in discussing that option further. I know that work has been done on a range of opportunities for launch sites, and I believe that the Machrihanish site was included in earlier reports. I would be willing to talk to the member about that.

I return to the situation in Ayrshire. Investment secured through the Ayrshire growth deal will deliver spaceport infrastructure to support the ambition of establishing a horizontal launch facility at Prestwick airport, which will include commercial space and transport infrastructure. That investment will also support the creation of an aerospace and space innovation centre, which will be a central hub for encouraging growth and supporting aerospace and space businesses in Scotland and the UK.

The development of launch facilities will open the door to a range of new business opportunities. We already know that Orbex is to open its new rocket-manufacturing facilities in Forres. I was delighted to be at the formal opening of its launch-vehicle development and manufacturing facility last month, to hear about its plans to employ around 150 people on the site, and to see the Prime rocket, which is an impressive piece of engineering with a carbon-fibre structure and a 3D-printed engine that runs on low-emission fuel. Other rocket research and manufacturing businesses are already based in Scotland, including Skyrora, which I mentioned earlier; I thank it for bringing the Black Arrow back to Scotland. The Shetland Space Centre is also developing proposals for ground-station satellite tracking facilities, which could support launch facilities.

As we know, Scotland is the data-driven capital of Europe—it hosts the largest centre for informatics in Europe and has more than 170 data science companies. The downstream use of space data is supporting a diverse and growing range of services: Bird.i, which is based in Glasgow, uses space-derived intelligence to monitor global construction; Trade in Space, which is also based in Glasgow, is developing new financial services with data that has been collected by satellites, thereby making peer-to-peer trading fairer and easier; Ecometrica, Global Surface Intelligence and Carbomap, which are all based in Edinburgh, and others are monitoring the earth’s forests and crops and tracking the impact of climate change; Astrosat, which is based in Musselburgh, is helping people to understand the planet while aiding disaster response; and the Scottish centre of excellence in satellite applications—SOXSA—at the University of Strathclyde is helping to develop smart, connected fish farms.

There are still challenges ahead. As with every sector, the industry is concerned about the potential impact of the UK’s exit from the EU. Companies are particularly concerned about the potential for a research funding gap to emerge. Any agreement with the EU on science and innovation will need to reflect priorities and strengths across the UK, including in Scotland, and we fully expect the UK Government to engage effectively with us on that.

A challenge for our ambition to start the launching of small satellites in 2021 is the need for launch operating companies and launch sites to have operating licences. The UK Government has said that the required secondary legislation should be in place by the end of 2020-21 and has confirmed that any site that can meet the safety and regulatory aspects of spaceflight would be eligible to apply for a licence to establish a spaceport.

Our ambitious plans for the space sector need strong leadership to succeed—political leadership, public sector leadership and business leadership. We are working in partnership with the Scottish space leadership council, which includes representatives from all parts of the space sector, from potential launch sites to satellite manufacturers, businesses engaged in data analysis and academic partners. Together, we will deliver on the aspiration to grow the Scottish space sector into a £4 billion industry by 2030 and we will seize the opportunity to make Scotland Europe’s leading space nation.

The Government will support the Conservative and Labour amendments. We will not support the Liberal Democrat amendment, not because we are opposed to enterprise zones or their application in this sector, but because we await a review from Scottish Enterprise into their effectiveness, which will inform our future decisions.

I move,

“That the Parliament welcomes the rapid growth of the Scottish space sector; notes that it now accounts for 18% of all jobs in the UK space industry; encourages investment in support of the ambition to deliver a full end-to-end space sector capability in Scotland, to build, launch and operate satellites; agrees that now is the time to take advantage of the strengths that Scotland has in technology, engineering and data science to realise this ambition; further agrees that Scotland’s clear strengths in small satellite manufacturing and space data are starting points for success, laying the foundations for Scotland to become Europe’s leading space nation, and considers that this success will be enhanced by Scotland’s plan to become the site of the first spaceport in Europe.”

The Scottish Conservatives welcome today’s debate on the Scottish space sector. We believe that Scotland is in a unique position to become Europe’s leading commercial space nation, so grasping the opportunity should unite all MSPs across the chamber.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the funding from the UK Government that is boosting Scotland’s space industry and ensuring that Scotland is a world leader in research and development.

We also support the partnership of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the UK Space Agency to deliver the first spaceport in the UK. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I am delighted that Sutherland could lead the way as the location of the UK’s first spaceport. I am also delighted that I am opening for my party today, because it means that I will be able to make the case for Sutherland before John Scott makes the case for Prestwick and Tavish Scott builds on the article that he wrote for the papers today about the suitability of Shetland. We are under no illusions—all the sites have merits and all the sites could deliver for Scotland.

Joking aside, I say that the simple truth is that every MSP would like to see their constituency or region reaping the benefits of the space industry and all that it offers. I firmly believe that every region, as I have said, has something to offer. That should be celebrated by everyone.

My initial position is to support the Highlands and Islands, which brings me conflict over whether to support the spaceport in Sutherland, or Tavish Scott’s recommendation for Shetland. I do not believe that the answer should be either/or: there are opportunities not only for the vertical launch spaceports that we have heard about but for the horizontal launch spaceports that we will hear about.

In Scotland, we are capable not only of launching rockets—we can build them, too. In fact, Scotland builds

“more spacecraft than anywhere outside California”

That is something to be proud of; it is a remarkable success story for Scottish manufacturing. Scotland is leading the European space race, because we can not only design, build and operate spacecraft, but we will now be able to launch them, too. I believe that the UK has the right business environment and the right industrial capability, and that it is blessed with the right geography to succeed.

As my amendment sets out, it is important to recognise that the success is underpinned by a UK Government that is making the right choices in supporting the space industry. First, the UK Government’s Space Industry Act 2018 allows commercial operators to launch flights into orbit, with payloads that can include satellites and scientific experiments. Secondly, the UK Government's industrial strategy includes support for a £50 million programme, known as LaunchUK, to support small satellite launches and suborbital flights.

Taken together, the Space Industry Act and the UK industrial strategy make Scotland the best place in Europe to start and to grow a space business. The economic potential is huge, as we have heard, so I want to mention that a bit more. Commercial small-satellite launches could be worth up to £4 billion to the UK economy over the next decade, and would contribute to the UK Government’s aim of growing our share of the global market to 10 per cent by 2030.

Choosing Sutherland as the site for Scotland’s first spaceport must be just the start. I hope that members will excuse the play on words—there are only two in this speech. Although that might be “one small step” for the LaunchUK programme, it could be “one giant leap” for the Highlands economy.

Lockheed Martin UK and Orbex have already signed memorandums of understanding that say that they can use the launch site, and it is anticipated that there could be up to six launches per year. It is expected that a spaceport in Sutherland would create about 40 highly skilled jobs in the area, and HIE estimates that that figure could multiply to 400 jobs by 2023. The spaceport would have a really positive impact that would spread across the wider region. We already know that Orbex is looking to base its mission control and design hub in Forres in Moray. That is important.

Such crucial investment in Sutherland and across the Highlands could not come at a better time for the region. There is a real need in the area for high-skilled jobs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and the growth of the space industry has the potential to soften the negative impact of the site at Dounreay being decommissioned.

That brings me to my final point. It is vital that investment in the space industry be made to work for local communities. It is fair to say that the plans for the Sutherland spaceport have divided opinion in the communities of Melness and Tongue. The appropriate channel through which to support or oppose any development is the local planning system. I have always been clear that planning decisions should be made locally, and that they should be honoured by the Government. I believe that the communities will see the benefit of having a spaceport, because the space industry is a lucrative business. The growth of the industry could work not only for communities in the Highlands, but across Scotland.

Presiding Officer, I hope that you will excuse my second play on words.

“To infinity and beyond!” That is the prize that is within touching distance for Scotland and the rest of the UK. We are leading the way in cutting-edge commercial space technology, and the opportunity exists to launch an estimated 2,000 satellites by 2030. By making the right choices now, we will give Scottish businesses a head start in the European space race.

The Conservatives will support the Labour amendment, but we are slightly concerned by the Liberal Democrat amendment. We look forward to a full explanation of the “enterprise zones” that are referenced.

Scotland is well placed in the space race: it is a race that we can win. I hope that all members across the chamber will join me in supporting that effort.

I move amendment S5M-16312.2, to insert at end:

“; and welcomes both the Space Industry Act 2018 and the UK Government’s Industrial Strategy, which includes support for a £50 million programme to support small satellite launches and sub-orbital flight from UK spaceports.”

I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s initiative to debate the Scottish space sector. With perfect timing, we are doing so during British science week. I am sure that that was well planned. Labour will support the motion in the name of Ivan McKee.

On 9 July 1962, a Thor-Delta rocket was launched from Cape Canaveral. On board was the United Kingdom’s Ariel 1 satellite, which not only made the UK the third country, after the USA and the Soviet Union, to operate a satellite, but it launched the UK’s space industry. That industry has developed to the point at which, in 2014, it contributed £11.8 billion to the British economy and supported 35,000 jobs, according to UK Government figures.

Just as it was a satellite that began the UK space industry, so it is satellites that will allow the UK Government to secure its ambition of a space industry that will be worth, as we have heard, £40 billion by 2030. That would represent a 10 per cent share of the global space industry market.

The first step towards that goal was the UK Government’s announcement that it intends to develop a single site as the UK’s spaceport. In July 2014, a shortlist of potential sites was announced, with the view being that the chosen site would be up and running by 2018. The original shortlist of eight was reduced to five, which included three sites in Scotland: Prestwick, Campbeltown and the Western Isles. In May 2016, the Department for Transport wrote to the spaceport bidders to inform them of its decision to end the bidding process and to move towards a licensing model.

In previous debates, I supported the case for selecting Campbeltown airport as a horizontal take-off spaceport, but I also recognised the great strengths of the other locations—in Prestwick, Shetland, the Western Isles and Sutherland. In the three years since my members’ business debate on spaceports, there have been substantial developments—for example, the UK Space Agency announced financial support last summer for a HIE-backed scheme to launch satellites from Melness crofters estate in Sutherland. As we have heard, HIE’s board has approved £17.3 million to support that project. That includes £2.5 million from the UKSA, nearly £10 million from HIE and £5 million that is being sought from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The HIE board approval depends on identification and delivery of local community benefits.

Space hub Sutherland would be a vertical take-off site and, as we have heard, it would aim for six launches annually, with the first in 2020. David Oxley, who is an HIE director, has stated that the jobs target is 400, with the aim of sending 2,000 small satellites into orbit by 2030.

As the minister said, start-up firm Orbex has opened a base in Forres, with the promise of 40 jobs this year and plans to expand to 150. Professor Malcolm Macdonald, who is the director of the Scottish centre of excellence in satellite applications and a UKSA board member, has said:

“we build more spacecraft than anywhere outside California, we have more frequent access to space than anywhere ... in the world, and we’re almost certainly going to have the first spaceport in Europe.”

In effect, there is a gap in the market. In Scotland, we design, build and operate spacecraft, and we can exploit the data that comes from them. The gap is in the ability to launch, so a spaceport would solve that problem.

At the most recent meeting of the cross-party group on aviation, which I chaired, Lockheed Martin raised some key issues for the future. For example, will the UK Government provide a liability cap for launch activities? That might become clearer following publication of the secondary legislation that is linked to the Space Industry Act 2018. The other key issue is the commercial viability of the first European small-satellite launch-on-demand service. There is intense competition across Europe on that, so it is crucial that the UK get there first, because the prize is immense.

Oxford Economics carried out an economic impact assessment that said that UK satellite launch capability would add £2.5 billion to gross domestic product and sustain 375 jobs. The largest amount of gross value added—63 per cent—would be in Scotland, because we would house the launch site. Scotland in general, and the Highlands and Islands in particular, have a comparative advantage on location. Scotland provides access to sun-synchronous and polar orbits—low-altitude orbits—which are both well suited to a wide range of commercial and other satellite applications.

It is vital that Scotland does not miss this important opportunity. Throughout history, Scottish scientists and engineers have been in the vanguard of innovation and discovery—from James Watt, who was the godfather of the industrial revolution, to Robert Watson-Watt, who invented radar, and from Williamina Fleming, who was an early astrophysics pioneer, to James Clerk Maxwell, who worked out the composition of Saturn’s rings more than 120 years before a space probe studied them.

Space technology can offer economic, strategic and inspirational gains. As the writer Arthur C Clarke said,

“The inspirational value of the space program is probably of far greater importance to education than any input of dollars ... A whole generation is growing up which has been attracted to the hard disciplines of science and engineering by the romance of space.”

We owe it not just to the people of today but to those who are yet to be born to get behind the project. We can build a great legacy and grasp the opportunity to be at the forefront of space technology, or we can choose to be left behind.

Space technology offers a new frontier for Scotland. Now we just need to boldly go and deliver it.

I move amendment S5M-16312.3, to insert at end:

“; notes the crucial diversification to the Scottish economy that the space sector provides; considers that future commercial viability will be dependent on the European small satellite launch on demand service, and notes the comparative advantage that Scotland enjoys for spaceport location by providing access to sun-synchronous and polar orbits.”

The space race is on—it is Scotland as a location versus European and worldwide alternatives. The issue is not just whether Scotland can be such a location; it is important to recognise, as I am sure Mr Stewart does, that Andøya in Norway, the Swedish Government and the Portuguese Azores are all competing to have the first vertical launch site in Europe.

Small satellites can be launched from Scotland, but launches will depend on being first to market—and the market stress is the important aspect of the industry. Who will invest £1 billion a year, every year, in the coming decades? That is why the Shetland Space Centre, Shetland Islands Council and our industry partners will deliver a ground and data centre in Unst this year and a launch facility for small-scale satellites by 2020. As a director of the company, I find that an incredibly exciting project, which is being developed by private sector investment.

Shetland understands what industry needs and when—we have been doing that with oil and gas for the past 40 years. Unst, in particular, deserves economic support and a vibrant future. Shell flew fixed-wing and helicopter oil industry transfers from Baltasound airfield to the east Shetland oil basin until that was discontinued in the late 1990s, and, in 2006, NATO closed down its Saxa Vord radar station. Those decisions halved Unst’s population and were a huge blow to the island’s economic future. I want to reverse that, as do our council and partners, and nothing will prevent our pursuing that objective.

Highlands and Islands Enterprise in Inverness authored the Sceptre report, which is an authoritative assessment of the small-scale satellite space market and where a UK launch site should be situated. The report established Unst as the best location for vertical launch in the UK because it is the furthest and most northerly point. For reasons that I do not understand, HIE refused to publish the report. Shetland Islands Council obtained the report not from the Highlands and Islands’ economic development agency but from the UK Space Agency. HIE has not worked to help Shetland on its launch proposals ever since, and I do not understand why.

HIE should adopt a fair approach of encouraging all options, as the minister and David Stewart rightly said. Ministers should adopt a level playing field on launch sites to ensure that Scotland delivers against European competition. To answer Edward Mountain’s question, that is what is behind my amendment. All areas of space activity need Government support to compete not with each other but in the worldwide market. Enterprise areas could be established to bring in business—that would be a signal that the Government is taking an even-handed approach to the market and supporting all of Scotland. I hope that the minister and the Tories accept that logic, and I hope that he refers to that issue in his closing remarks.

Unst is the right location for space launches. Why? A rocket blasting off from Unst would cross only sea; it would not pass over the west of Shetland’s oil fields and installations or the Faroe Islands.

I, too, have a copy of the Sceptre report. Although it says that the Shetland isles are the best location to launch from because, as the member said, the trajectory avoids the populations in the Faroe Islands and Iceland, it also says that a remote island location would be more logistically challenging than a mainland site such as the Moine peninsula. That is why that site was chosen to be supported.

I will give you your time back, Mr Scott.

I hope Gail Ross accepts that, if that argument had been followed, we would never have built the Sullom Voe oil terminal or the Total gas plant at a cost of $4 billion, and engineering companies such as Schlumberger and many others would not have been based in Shetland for the past 40 years. I cannot understand why HIE is running down Shetland, as it has been doing, as though we cannot do things, as though we do not have engineering companies and as though we have not had oil and gas for 40 years. The evidence is, rather, to the contrary.

An Unst launch would directly reach polar and sun-synchronous orbits, as David Stewart rightly said, and that is what industry needs. Unst would do that directly; no other site would do that.

The parallels with oil and gas are resonant. When the vast east Shetland basin was discovered, in the 1970s, the industry needed the nearest point of land for a terminal. That became Sullom Voe. Once again, but for space launches, it is industry and not public agencies that will choose the preferred location. That is why ArianeGroup, the European space monolith, is partnering with the Shetland Space Centre to design and build the launch facility.

I am grateful to the First Minister for her discussion with our partners in ArianeGroup when she recently met the company in Paris. As the company explained to the First Minister, Unst is the best location in northern Europe. That is why commercial satellite businesses across Scotland of the kind that the minister and others have described have been to Unst and want to launch from Unst. It is why Goonhilly Earth Station in Cornwall—a UK earth observation centre—will partner with Shetland. Its chief executive said:

“it’s obvious that Shetland is recognised as the best location by key launch companies.”

It is why the UK Government and its regulator, the UK Space Agency, support launch options across the UK. Let us be in no doubt that Unst will be at the centre of this exciting new industrial future. I say to Edward Mountain that it will be the final frontier.

I move amendment S5M-16312.1, to insert at end:

“; and supports the creation of enterprise zones in those areas of Scotland where space activity is being developed.”

Oh dear. I do not really want to hear any more of these astronomical quotes, quotes about satellites or whatever, but I suppose that I am going to.

We move to the open debate, and I ask for four-minute speeches. I call Clare Adamson, to be followed by John Scott.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by saying—

I beg your pardon—I might have done something wrong. [Interruption.] It was you who jumped the gun, Mr Scott—I did not get it wrong.

I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer. It was my fault.

Och, it is such a change. I call Clare Adamson, to be followed by the former Deputy Presiding Officer, John Scott, who should know better.

Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I will not be arguing this afternoon for the spaceport to come to my constituency. However, I should point out that Motherwell and Wishaw has a great tradition of engineering and science and a wonderful college. I would welcome any new businesses in the sector to come and investigate what is happening in our area.

Last week, I was delighted to attend the celebrating EU researchers night, which was hosted in the Parliament by Lewis Macdonald—I certainly hope that it will not be the last time that we are able to celebrate horizon 2020 projects in this area. Explorathon was there with seven of our world-class universities, showing off work that they are doing that has been funded by the European Commission.

Among those involved was the University of Strathclyde, and I was delighted to meet Peter McGinty, the network manager for the stardust project, which is devoted to mastering the techniques for monitoring asteroids and space debris, managing their removal and deflection and exploring possible benefits of exploiting them as a resource in the future. The stardust consortium is a collaboration of universities from across the EU and private investors who are seeking an ethical approach to space exploration that embraces the reusability of components and manufacturing to allow us to limit the amount of debris that there is in space as well as potential risks from asteroids and man-made space debris. It is a fantastic project.

If members want a timely reminder of what space debris looks like, they should go and see the Black Arrow R3, which is sitting outside. I thank the Presiding Officer for working with Skyrora to bring it to the Parliament today—in fact, its people told me that you are now affectionately known as “the rocket lady”. I realise that I might have to pay for that comment later.

Stardust is a truly visionary project that exemplifies the potential for Scotland and our universities to lead in this new industry.

In 2016, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s directorate for science, technology and innovation produced a policy note titled “Space and Innovation: How do Space Activities Relate to the Global Economy?” It states:

“Three overarching thrusts ... driving innovation in the space sector”

up to 2026 are

“the persistence of national security and science objectives (with ever-more countries investing in space programmes); ... the expansion of downstream space applications; ... and the pursuit of human space exploration.”

It is therefore not surprising that Government funding is key to the sector.

However, disappointingly, when the policy note came out, the UK had one of the lowest percentage shares of gross domestic product being spent in the area. Only 0.05 per cent of the research budget was being allocated to it compared with 0.1 per cent in France—double the UK’s spend. Business enterprise research and development statistics show that, since then, Scotland has been investing in research and development in the area, with a particularly impressive figure of more than £1.2 billion having been spent on R and D businesses in Scotland last year. That is a sizeable 13.9 per cent real-terms increase on what was spent in 2016 and a 93.6 per cent increase on 2007 levels of spend. BERD expenditure in Scotland in 2017 was £1.247 billion—the highest level since 2001—while UK expenditure increased by only 2.9 per cent in real terms over the same period.

This is an area in which we can boldly go and be world leaders. After all, space is the final frontier. Whether we are talking about space debris or landing Philae on comet 67P, Scotland can lead the way.

What a pleasure it is to take part in this debate on Scotland becoming Europe’s leading space nation. Indeed, it is a pleasure following last week’s signing of the Ayrshire growth deal at Ayrshire College, when £80 million was allocated to aerospace and the space programme, of which £32 million came from the UK Government and £30 million came from the Scottish Government, with South Ayrshire Council adding £18 million to the total. I say thank you, in my old-fashioned way, to each of those agencies of government for that massive level of support.

Prestwick airport, with its 880 acres of land and its unique natural and geographical attributes, has a bright future and enormous potential. Of still greater importance to Ayrshire—particularly South Ayrshire—is the almost 4,000 largely maintenance, repair and overhaul jobs that are supported by the aerospace sector in and around the airport. The concept of a spaceport at Prestwick would build on and from that solid foundation.

Companies such as Spirit, which employs more than 1,000 people and builds 65 leading-edge wings per month for Airbus, are involved in pioneering use of composite materials; BAE Systems designs the aeroplanes of the future and is involved in helping to develop a new horizontal-launch reusable spacecraft; and companies such as Chevron are seeking more hangar space to refurbish aircraft from many of the world’s major airlines. Between them, Ryanair, UTC, Woodward and GE Caledonian support more than 1,000 jobs, and, with 800 jobs at National Air Traffic Services, there is a genuinely world-class hub of expertise in and around Prestwick.

Prestwick seeks to be part of the growing small-satellite space industry, which is expected to be worth £3.8 billion to the UK by 2030, as Ivan McKee said, because Prestwick is the location of choice in the UK for horizontal-launch spacecraft, with cleared airspace all the way to the north pole. That is why the allocation of the £80 million to Prestwick airport last week is so important. That money and other funds that are available will allow the airport to make the modest infrastructure improvements that are necessary to make horizontal launch possible from the site and to gain the necessary civil aviation authority certification as well as host the Scottish space and innovation centre.

Of course, Scottish Conservatives welcome the vertical launch site that is to be built in Sutherland, but the big prize in the field will go to those who are using reusable horizontal-launch vehicles at a location that is supported by excellent road and rail infrastructure as well as by can-do companies that can design, build and repair anything that flies. Cleared airspace to the north pole is another vital asset of the Prestwick site.

One of the local companies that is very much involved in the new space race is Orbital Access, which is led by Stuart McIntyre, who is the grandson of Group Captain McIntyre, one of the founders of the airport in 1935. In addition, the University of Glasgow, the University of Strathclyde and the University of the West of Scotland are all involved in the development of the spaceport, and they support Clyde Space and other Glasgow builders of small satellites. I congratulate those hugely successful pioneers and market leaders on the development of small satellites in the west of Scotland.

Horizontal satellite space launch may be just around the corner at Prestwick, where, it is hoped, the operational model and business case for horizontal launch will be in place by October this year. When that happens, the world will once again take note of what Prestwick can deliver. It is my hope that this cutting edge industry, along with the other organisations that are already on site, will attract further investors to Prestwick and Ayrshire.

The Ayrshire growth deal has come at exactly the right time for the development of Prestwick, and it is an opportunity to be seized with both hands—as, I am certain, it will be, with both Governments, three councils, three universities and Ayrshire College, as well as the people of Ayrshire, all working together in a collaborative way to make that development a success.

As a 13-year-old, I would catch the bus into Glasgow city centre with my friend Colin and visit the old spit and sawdust Bay Horse pub. Over a Coca-Cola, we watched the original—to my mind, the only—“Star Trek”, our mothers’ addiction to “Coronation Street” denying us the chance to see such a magnificent programme at home in an era before catch-up television, DVD and even video, although, I know that for you, Presiding Officer, it was the invention of the talkies that changed your world.

Members: Oh!

While watching fleshy, flashy Captain Kirk, Mr Spock, Bones and the gang, we escaped the reality of the cold war and a hot conflict in Vietnam, travelling to a future three centuries hence, where Captain Kirk always got the girl and the nations of the earth had set aside their differences, abolished poverty, racism and conflict to create a multi-ethnic, indeed multispecies, united federation of planets, and explored the universe with astonishingly advanced technology.

In the mid-1970s, the Apollo project was winding down, but we looked forward to humanity landing on Mars by 1985, moon bases by 1999 and our species fulfilling its destiny and reaching for the stars long before now. Sadly, as Scotty, chief engineer of the Starship Enterprise said, ye cannae change the laws of physics, and the invention of warp drive—moving faster than the speed of light—still eludes us. I take my hat off to those space pioneers who still look upwards and see humanity reaching beyond the confines of our beautiful planet.

Today, we had a wee glimpse of our current involvement in space with Skyrora bringing the Black Arrow to Parliament. I thank you for that, Presiding Officer.

Back in October 2016, I strongly argued for Prestwick to be the UK’s first spaceport. Since then, Prestwick has worked with partners to make a horizontal space launch from there a reality, moving towards a licence application. It has one of the longest runways in the UK—more than 2,980m long—and frequently handles the largest aircraft.

Already a NASA partner, Prestwick has hygiene, health check and rehabilitation facilities for astronauts returning from space via Kazakhstan. With the space industry set for rapid growth, we have a tremendous opportunity for Ayrshire to become a hub for commercial space flights. That would showcase Scotland’s already world-renowned skills in engineering and science, propelling us into developing the next generation of space-related industries. Scotland already has 18 per cent of UK space-related jobs.

Some of the largest global aerospace companies are already in Prestwick, including BAE Systems, GE Caledonian, UTC Aerospace Systems, Woodward International Inc and, as John Scott mentioned, Spirit Aerosystems, which employs around 1,000 people at Prestwick.

Scotland’s achievable share of the global space market is £4 billion by 2030. Prestwick will be vital to that, offering the UK’s first horizontal launch facility and low-cost regular access to space, and providing full services to the sector. It is not only the space industry that will profit; we will have more spending power in the Ayrshire economy from the spaceport workers and increased tourism will bring further benefits. Ayrshire already has huge appeal because of our beautiful coastlines, golf courses and rich heritage. The spaceport will build on that.

Prestwick is one of only two tier 1 UK airports able to take aircraft in security emergencies and is also a search and rescue base for Her Majesty’s Coastguard. A further advantage is Prestwick’s proximity to two hospitals within 20 minutes’ drive. Glasgow, home to some of our nation’s finest university graduates, research teams, innovative companies and over half of Scotland’s aerospace workforce—along with 8,000 engineering undergraduates—is within an hour of Prestwick. Central road and rail services make it simple to transport equipment and materials and to attract specialist staff.

Thanks to the SNP Government, more than £50 million has been invested in Ayrshire’s further and higher education infrastructure over the past five years. The Scottish and UK Governments, through the Ayrshire growth deal, agreed to £62 million just last Friday which, along with £18 million from South Ayrshire Council, will support the space and aerospace industries at Prestwick.

Prestwick has been a centre of aerospace excellence for over 80 years and today it continues to go from strength to strength.

You must conclude there.

Prestwick’s spaceport will perfectly showcase—

Conclude! I am sorry, but if you make an ageist comment to the Presiding Officer, you cannot expect me to be sympathetic.

I was going to begin by calling you rocket lady, Presiding Officer, but now I dare not do that.

This is an important debate for several reasons. First, it is clearly an opportunity for the Scottish economy and one that we need to grasp. Secondly, and more importantly, it is an opportunity that, as the Government motion identifies, builds on the strengths that we have in Scotland. As Scots, we are sometimes too slow to recognise our strengths and it is important that we identify them. However, finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is an opportunity for us to talk about the cool stuff that we have seen on recent visits in and around our constituencies.

Let me begin by doing just that. I was hugely excited to look at the NASA robot Valkyrie, which is based at the informatics department at the University of Edinburgh. It is a 1.8m humanoid robot that has been gifted by the Johnson Space Center to the University of Edinburgh so that it can develop the robot’s control systems and other technology. The robot has been built to explore how robots can be used in space exploration.

Robots in space—it really does not get much better than that. I must admit that, when I come home from work having had a day like that and describe what I have done, my wife asks me whether I have a real job. However, it is hugely important that we look at such things.

If, a number of years ago, people had talked to me about spaceports, I would have thought that they were talking about Mos Eisley rather than somewhere here in Scotland, although I would not dare describe either Shetland or Sutherland as a

“hive of scum and villainy”,

even if that is how Obi-Wan Kenobi might have described such a place. I will not embroil myself in that particular space war, but the very fact that Scotland builds more satellites than anywhere else in Europe or, indeed, anywhere outside California, is remarkable.

The way the space industry has changed in terms of entrepreneurial opportunities, perhaps most conspicuously with Elon Musk and SpaceX, and the fact that we can take advantage of those opportunities here in Scotland, is hugely exciting. Scotland is truly a centre of excellence for technology and engineering, and I was pleased that the minister highlighted the activity that is taking place at the Royal Observatory in my Edinburgh constituency. There we have the Higgs centre for innovation and the UK astronomy technology centre, which are very much at the forefront of development and investment in small and medium enterprises developing space opportunities.

The award of funding in August 2018 to the University of Edinburgh as part of the space research and innovation network for technology—SPRINT—is hugely welcome. It enables us to draw on many important factors that we have here in Edinburgh, including data science as well as the data infrastructure and the opportunities presented through the city region deal. A number of other things are also occurring at the University of Edinburgh, such as the work with Orbital Micro Systems.

More broadly, we need to look at how technology will change our industry and the nature of employment. The space sector is just one of those opportunities and it is vital that we focus on the investment and support that are required to take advantage of those opportunities.

These days, it is almost impossible to ignore Brexit, but the true cost of Brexit is the distraction that it creates from the real focus, which should be on opportunities such as this to develop our economy for the future and make sure that Scotland is at the forefront of both technology and the development of jobs for the future.

I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to leave after my speech, as I have other business to attend to. I apologise to the members whose speeches I will not be able to enjoy.

As I am the MSP for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross, it will be no surprise that I am able to support one site for a spaceport. A few years ago, someone who shall remain nameless whispered to me at the end of a meeting in Caithness, “What do you think about launching rockets from north Sutherland?” At that time, I admit that it seemed to be an impossibility. What on earth could that little piece of the Highlands offer to the multibillion-pound space industry? How could we ever get that off the ground?

Move forward to 2018, and I find myself on “Good Morning Scotland” explaining how a remote peninsula in north Sutherland could become the first vertical launch site in Europe. There is a total funding package of £17.3 million for one of the most remote, rural and fragile areas in Scotland, including the grant award from the UK Space Agency of £2.5 million, along with £9.8 million from HIE—and that is without the private investment of Lockheed Martin and Orbex.

Sutherland is one of the areas set to be hit by the closure of the Dounreay nuclear power plant, which is the single biggest employer on the north coast. It is predicted that the population will fall by at least 11.9 per cent by 2041. It is imperative that we do all we can to create opportunities to keep young people and families in the area. In that and many more regards, the announcement of the UK Space Agency grant funding, along with the backing for the Sutherland site from HIE, Lockheed Martin and Orbex, is brilliant news for my constituents and wider Scotland. With the rundown of Dounreay, that will provide confidence to my area that other industries can and will move into the area and offset the impact that the closure of Dounreay will have, especially for those people who want to remain in the area and work there.

The Caithness and north Sutherland regeneration partnership is recognised as a great way of working. It has been supported from its inception by the Scottish Government and I feel that it is now time for the Scottish Parliament to show that we are looking to support the area as a whole.

Following the award of the grant last summer, HIE is developing the proposed spaceport at Sutherland, which could create 40 jobs for the local community and hundreds more in the wider supply chain.

Orbex has already announced plans for its base in Moray. There are also opportunities for Inverness, the Western Isles, and Argyll and Bute. Shetland has signed an agreement to establish a satellite tracking and communication centre in Unst. I was happy to hear the Shetland constituency MSP, Tavish Scott, confirm that that is going ahead. It just goes to prove that, when we work together as team Scotland, there can be rewards for all those areas.

The proposal will give the opportunity for people to grow their skills in the sector. Businesses in the supply chain will benefit and it will attract tourists, who will bring their hard-earned cash to spend, enabling more small and medium-sized enterprises to flourish.

The UK Government is working at pace to develop the detailed regulations that are required to implement the Space Industry Act 2018, and HIE continues to support a range of organisations that are interested in establishing space launch services.

The project is a lifeline for my constituency, which is one of the most remote and rural, economically fragile and demographically challenged parts of Scotland. We must get behind the project and show north Sutherland that it is not forgotten, and show the world that that little piece of the Highlands is open for business.

I am pleased to contribute to this important debate on a significant and fast-growing sector of Scotland’s economy, although I am disappointed that all the good quotations on space have already been used by other members.

We have heard that the space sector offers the prospect of high-value jobs and a boost to the Scottish economy. The sector has grown at an average of more than 8 per cent every year over the past decade, and average wages in the sector are four times the national average. Over and above that, the space sector will deliver much wider advantages in the fields of transportation, energy, the environment, information technology and industrial productivity.

The good news is that Scotland is uniquely positioned to lead the UK’s commercial space sector and become one of the leading pioneers in Europe. We welcome the fact that the UK and Scottish Governments recognise that potential. As the UK astronaut, Tim Peake, said after his voyage in 2015:

“We need to give our industry a chance to develop ... If we’re not involved now, then we are simply going to miss the boat.”

Responding to that challenge, the UK Government’s industrial strategy has set the ambitious target to increase the UK’s share of the global space market from 6.5 per cent now to 10 per cent in the next 10 years. The industrial strategy is also positioning spaceports around the country to access the global market for launching small satellites, which is worth £10 billion.

Scotland is benefiting significantly as a result of those investments. As we have heard, 18 per cent of UK employment in the space industry is in Scotland. Last year, the UK Government announced more than £31 million in funding for the UK space sector, including support for the Sutherland spaceport, which would create hundreds of new jobs and considerable economic benefits. Initial funding of £2.5 million has already been allocated to develop the vertical launch site in Sutherland, which will use innovative rocket technologies to pave the way for a world-leading space flight facility. Commenting on the investments, Lockheed Martin said:

“The UK Space Agency’s strategic vision for a world-class launch market will position the nation for a very bright future”.

In addition to those investments, the UK Government, working together with the Scottish Government through the Ayrshire growth deal, has committed to developing Prestwick airport as a horizontal take-off spaceport, as well as a new aerospace and space innovation centre as part of a sector-leading cluster. As John Scott said, that investment will bring about a transformational change to Ayrshire’s economy—quite rightly, it has cross-party support in this Parliament.

Another crucial area in which the UK industrial strategy is delivering is the field of satellite technology, which has recently received investment of more than £50 million. Scotland already leads in that area. Glasgow companies produce eight satellites every week and those firms have welcomed the new investment in Scotland. Commenting on the future of the space satellite industry, Clyde Space said:

“Having a spaceport located in Scotland will bring about a whole host of commercial advantages and not only to our operations in Glasgow, but to the entire space sector in the whole of the UK.”

The space sector offers a significant opportunity for Scotland to develop and lead in a vital industry for the future. The best way of doing that will be through close collaboration with industry and research partners across the UK. The UK industrial strategy provides the scale, expertise and unparalleled levels of research and development that can help Scotland to reach our full potential in this area. I encourage the minister and his colleagues—perhaps he can mention this in his closing speech—to fully realise those opportunities, work together with the UK Government and take advantage of the scale that the UK industrial strategy will provide.

I support the amendment in Edward Mountain’s name.

For this debate, two obvious questions come to mind. First, why Scotland? And secondly, why space? The answers are really quite obvious.

Why space? In Scotland, we have a long tradition of engineering and invention, and many of the technologies that we use today are possible because of that history. David Stewart referred to James Watt, who introduced the steam engine to our industries. John Logie Baird invented the television; indeed, he demonstrated the first colour television in the late 1920s, not long after the first black and white television. Ken Gibson referred to Montgomery Scott of Star Trek but failed to provide the quotation from the actor, James Doohan, who played Scotty and who, when asked by the director of the film what nationality he thought the engineer should be, simply replied

“all the world’s best engineers have been Scottish.”

That is why Star Trek had a Scottish engineer.

Scotland continues to punch above its weight—we all know that. Members have referred to many of the companies in the west of Scotland such as Spire, which has been blown away by the first-class employees that it can attract in Scotland; that is why Glasgow houses its European headquarters.

Now, why space? Well, space represents an infinite—or near infinite—possibility. In financial terms, we have heard about the value of the industry now and the expectations that it will triple in the lifetime of many of the people who are here today. Capturing just a little bit of that cake would be extremely valuable for our economy, for growth, for the creation of well-paid jobs and, indeed, for the development of new technologies and ownership of the intellectual property here, in order to provide enduring income streams. The public sector has its role in providing the consents and the infrastructure at both UK and Scottish level.

Of course, there is a bit more to it than that. Space has soft power, which we need to recognise. Sputnik 1 went up on 4 October 1957, as a demonstration of Soviet power, and Sputnik 2, with the first mammal, a dog called Laika, on board, went up to align with the 50th anniversary of the Russian revolution—in what was, according to the old calendar, October 1917—on 3 November 1957. Therefore, it is about soft as well as hard power.

We need to look beyond ourselves, at what we can be rather than what we are. I simply love the Shan Jahan quotation that is on the side of the Taj Mahal, which says:

“happy are those who dream dreams and are prepared to make the sacrifice to make them come true.”

Well, we have dreams for space and we have the means to make them come true—they do not even need great sacrifice.

Tavish Scott made an important point when he said that we should be the first, and the history of space illustrates that. Who was the second woman in space? The answer is Kondakova. We remember Valentina Tereshkova, who was the first, but we do not remember who was second. Who was the second American to orbit the earth? We remember John Glenn, who was the first, but Gus Grimmon we might not remember. And who was the second Soviet? He was Titov; Gargarin, of course, we remember.

I am of an age to have been brought up hearing the immortal words in my ears, “Beam me up, Scotty.” Space may be our final frontier, but the galaxy is no longer far, far away. Scotland has the opportunity to be a leader in the on-going reach for space, and we can become a significant force in the context of space advancement and industry for years to come.

Scotland has already begun the push to develop itself as a leader in the reach for space. A 2016 London Economics report entitled “Development of the Scottish Space Industry” stated:

“it is imperative to first consolidate and maintain the strong existing base of the Scottish space industry and economy”.

It said:

“In order for Scotland to become a market-leading space cluster, a strategic focus on one capability, market or infrastructure needs to be identified and all development effort needs to be focussed on establishing Scotland as a global authority and centre for that activity.”

Scotland is key to the development of the UK space market. As the report said:

“The UK’s Space Innovation and Growth ... Action Plan from 2010 defines a target for the UK space economy to capture 10% of the global market by 2030”

and

“Scotland may be regarded as a location-based space cluster ... The Scottish space cluster is supported by a range of institutions, policy measures and other infrastructure characteristics, backing the industry by means of a range of activities including networking and industry coordination, business incubation, technology funding, business and industry promotion, and research and education activities.”

Some companies in Scotland are already reaching into space. I recently had the opportunity to visit Skyrora’s new production facility in Loanhead, which is in my Midlothian North and Musselburgh constituency. Skyrora is an Edinburgh-based launch vehicle company that leverages proven space technology to provide a cost-effective and reliable launch service for satellites from northern Scotland, in line with the UK Government’s aim to capture a larger share of the global space market. Attracted by its proximity to future launch sites and customers as well as the ability to gain access to universities and to benefit from the long-standing engineering heritage that our country boasts, Skyrora opened its first Scottish production facility in Loanhead. That is evidence that value is already being added to our economy. It has stated:

“We aim to develop the Scottish ... space ecosystem to reduce the cost of access to space, allowing all of society to reap the benefits that space data can provide, ranging across every sector imaginable.”

Skyrora successfully launched Scotland’s first-ever commercial rocket in August 2018 and it plans to launch a further three test vehicles within the next year, building up to its first orbital launch in the early 2020s. It has no doubt that Scotland is the ideal place to conduct such activity, as it pushes forward with its plans to solidify its position as the UK’s most advanced satellite launch vehicle company. That space-focused company is investing in Scotland.

Choosing to invest in space will have diverse, long-lasting and positive effects on the Scottish economy. The London Economics report stated:

“Scotland’s space industry is significant, and it leads the line globally in the nascent field of nanosatellites”.

It also said:

“the closer proximity to a launch facility will make the logistics of launch significantly easier. This will reduce the need to ‘piggy-back’ off larger satellites launches into geostationary orbit.”

According to Skyrora,

“Scotland builds 40% of the world’s small satellites and 25% of the world’s telecom satellites but it lacks the capacity to launch these satellites into space.”

Therefore, Scotland has the opportunity to be a leader in the on-going industrialisation of space.

As we invest in local resources, our economy will be strengthened and we will become a powerful force in the context of space advancement and industry for years to come. Let us, therefore, choose to continue to invest in the development of our space sector.

The real message from the debate is that Kenny Gibson should, in the future, not insult the Presiding Officer, in order to ensure that he can finish his speeches. We were all gleefully waiting for that.

As we are doing history, the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon will be on 21 July, this summer. Some years back, I took my family on holiday to Houston for reasons with which I will not bore members—they were to do with friends in the south-west of the United States. The host family took us to the mission control centre in Houston. I do not know whether other members have been there, but it is well worth a visit. It is, of course, part of space history, but for some of us it brings back memories of watching things when were rather younger and smaller than we are now.

I want to stress three points in reflecting on the contributions that have been made. The first, which Stewart Stevenson made too, is that Scotland needs to be first. I do not apologise for making that point. My concern is not so much about what goes on in Scotland as it is about the competition that exists across Europe. Take, for example, the amount of money that the Portuguese might pour into the Azores. They are also trying to catch Orbex and are working hard with other companies that have been mentioned in the debate. We are not the only ones who aspire to provide the services and locations that the launching companies need.

On the satellite companies, a number of members made eminently sensible observations about the scale of that industry, the spin-outs from universities, the benefits for the teaching of STEM subjects in schools in particular, and the excitement that it creates in physics and chemistry departments because teachers can now see a way to make real the reasons why young girls and boys should take physics and chemistry courses in high school.

Space can do all those things—it reaches all those points—but to make its appeal even stronger we have to make sure that we win the launch business. I believe that there will be enough business for more than one launch site in Scotland.

John Scott made a persuasive case for Prestwick. Our people have certainly talked to many of the companies that he mentioned. I agree with his analysis. The interesting thing about horizontal launch is that in order for the rocket to be dropped safely from underneath the belly of the aircraft, it has to get into northern airspace where, in simple terms, there is nothing that it can be dropped upon. The ground station in Shetland and the ones that will exist in the Faroe Islands—I have no doubt that in time there will be stations north of the Arctic circle—will all be part of the international network.

I do not mean this to be derogatory, but Stewart Stevenson is looking at his mobile phone at the moment. Here’s the thing: I am told that from getting up in the morning and going through work every day, most of us use 23 separate satellites. As the minister rightly said, they are not Cape Canaveral satellites, but satellites that are the size of the folder that is sitting on Mr Stevenson’s desk. An awful lot more of them will go into space. Scotland designs and builds them now; in the future it will undoubtedly also be able to launch and recover them.

Will the member take an intervention?

Can I, Presiding Officer?

Yes—you can take a brief one. I will give you a little extra time.

Does Tavish Scott recognise that becoming the space dustman is also a commercial opportunity?

Absolutely. We could spend an afternoon on that issue, too. That was an entirely fair question.

My plea to the minister is for a level playing field so that all the flowers can flourish and Scotland can build a great industry. There would certainly be cross-party support for that. We should all be allowed to get on without people getting in our way, so we should make sure that wherever the industry exists in Scotland, it benefits Scotland not only in academic terms, but in purely commercial terms. The commercial market is the bit that we really want. That needs to happen as quickly as possible, wherever the industry exists—Sutherland, Unst, Penicuik or wherever.

The debate has provided an opportunity for some light-hearted banter. It appears that we are all Trekkies now. However, it is also a serious debate. We have to look at the advancements in technology that have made our talking about spaceports possible. It is absolutely incredible that that has happened, so we need to ensure that we are ready for spaceports.

Tavish Scott mentioned mobile phones. Last night, I told my mother what we were going to be debating today, and she asked why. I asked her whether she uses her phone. She does, so she will benefit from the technology, too.

I was slightly disappointed that the Scottish Government said that its ambition is to have one spaceport in Scotland. As we have heard in the debate, we could have two kinds of spaceport: vertical-launch and horizontal-launch ports. I would like the Scottish Government to be a bit more ambitious.

Perhaps I was not clear enough earlier. The Scottish Government is keen to encourage anyone who comes forward with a spaceport proposal. It will be considered by the agencies and assessed on its merits. That goes for vertical-launch spaceports and horizontal-launch spaceports. We are keen to have as many spaceports as we can sustain in Scotland.

That was a welcome intervention.

We in the Parliament must make sure that we unite to ensure that the prize comes to Scotland. We must be careful not to waste too much energy on fighting with each other over where the spaceport should be based. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I know all the potential sites in my region. A spaceport would bring a great and much-needed economic boost to any of the areas. I am sure that that is true for the whole of Scotland.

Among others, John Scott and Kenny Gibson made strong pleas for Prestwick and Ayrshire. That is why the Lib Dem amendment is important, because it looks to provide assistance to all the areas that want to develop spaceports in order to ensure that the developments come to Scotland, but it would also allow all areas that are interested to benefit in some way and to develop their own centres of excellence.

This is not only about jobs at the launch site: it is also about the jobs in manufacturing and central services. There being a spaceport in Scotland would encourage all areas of Scotland to welcome the industry to set up shop. It could provide a number of centres of excellence. David Stewart told us that we design, build and operate spacecraft but, at the moment, have nowhere from which to launch them. We must therefore take that important step in order to ensure that we fit the bill for all aspects of the industry.

The nature of the work means that developers are looking at rural areas. I am sure that that was also the case when air travel first began. Rather than risking a satellite falling to the ground in a built-up area, launching out to sea means that there is less chance of damage if something goes wrong. I am sure that such concerns will quickly be overcome but, in the meantime, I am happy that the industry is looking at rural areas.

Similar was also, strangely, true of Dounreay. The reactor was built away from centres of population: it was rumoured that the plan was to roll the reactor into the sea when it was finished with. Therefore, it is perhaps fitting that the Sutherland spaceport should be developed on the same north coast as Dounreay. Gail Ross made the point that, with the downturn of Dounreay, a spaceport in Sutherland would be a much-needed boost to the area, as it would be for other areas.

We must also look at the skills and knowledge that we have and at the technology and robotics that we need to develop the industry, and we need to encourage young people to take up STEM subjects. David Stewart said that space innovation is attracting young people to STEM subjects; I hope that that is the case.

Daniel Johnson spoke about the interesting things that the University of Edinburgh is doing with space robotics. Again, that emphasises that the development is not for just one area of Scotland. Regardless of whether an area is beside the spaceport or not, there is work there that we can develop. Being in the same country means that we can all make the most of it.

In his opening speech, the minister talked about some of the things that we could develop in space, including solar energy and access to minerals, but I sound a note of caution: we must be very careful how we exploit space. We must make sure that we do not wreak havoc there, as we have done on earth. We must be much more gentle with our interventions in space.

Presiding Officer,

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Those are, of course, the words of President John F Kennedy, as he attempted to persuade the American people about the Apollo programme. It captured the public’s imagination, not only on that side of the Atlantic, but around the world.

Putting a man on the moon once embodied what we thought of as a space project. However, as we have heard today, projects have become much more than that. From satellites that we have sent into space comes data that we—including Stewart Stevenson—use in Parliament on our mobile phones. Scotland is uniquely positioned to make the most of that. As the JFK quotation states, it organises

“the best of our energies and skills”.

In preparing for today’s debate, it has been quite eye-opening to come to understand the extent of Scotland’s readiness to embark on the mission, on which the minister, in his opening speech, Colin Beattie and other members throughout the debate have commented. That readiness is not only in terms of the geographical advantage that we hold for horizontal-launch and vertical-launch sites to reach highly sought-after orbits. I note that that is technical language with which I am certainly not familiar.

Leaders in the sector, including Nick Allain of Spire Global Inc, have been quoted this afternoon as saying that Scotland’s access to manufacturing and engineering expertise, as well as its world-class universities, have been the attraction for businesses to set up in Scotland, which means that Scotland now manufactures more satellites than anywhere outwith the United States, and that Glasgow is building more than any other European city.

That Scotland punches above its weight is evidenced by the fact that, as we have heard, our proportion of jobs in the UK space industry is double our proportion of the UK population as a whole.

We have heard about the importance of the west and the north of Scotland for our space sector. I will comment on the growing role that is played by this very city. The space economy relates not just to the traditional view of the space sector, in terms of manufacture, launch and operation of space assets including satellites, but to use of signals and data that are supplied back to earth from those assets, including for earth-observation imagery.

Edinburgh’s place as part of the space economy—although I think that it was not mentioned by my colleague Edward Mountain in his opening speech—is an important one. For example, the international center for earth data was set up last year jointly by a team from the University of Edinburgh and satellite technology provider Orbital Micro Systems. It will use data to improve weather forecasting around the world, for use by a number of sectors including agriculture, aviation and shipping. The University of Edinburgh is ideally placed to make the most of that opportunity by taking advantage of its excellence in data science and geoscience in order to maximise the value that is derived from earth-observation satellite data using the latest data techniques.

That reputation will only grow, as the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal—which is utilising funding from the UK and Scottish Governments—aims, through the University of Edinburgh and Heriot-Watt University, to train 100,000 data scientists and foster 400 data-enabled start-up companies in the next 15 years, and as organisations and public bodies come to understand the usefulness of the data in areas ranging from monitoring of crop yields to pollution.

Conservative members have made clear the potential for Scotland to lead the UK’s commercial space sector. Given the ambition that the UK Government has in the area, it is an exciting prospect for Scotland. The Scottish Conservative amendment to today’s motion welcomes the Space Industry Act 2018 and the investment of £50 million by the UK Government

“to support small satellite launches and sub-orbital flight from UK spaceports”,

both of which arise from the ambition in the UK Government’s industrial strategy to increase the UK’s share of the global space market to 10 per cent by 2030. As we have heard, the 2018 act lays the foundations to allow commercial operators to launch vehicles and payloads into orbit from UK soil.

That was swiftly followed by the announcement that Sutherland has been selected by the UK Space Agency to be the first spaceport in the United Kingdom—indeed, in Europe—backed up by £2.5 million of UK Government funding. The spaceport will bring about 400 jobs to the region by 2023 as a result of launch activities attracting further investment and talent to the area.

The spaceport will, of course, be utilised to launch into orbit the small satellites that are rapidly being manufactured in Scotland. Manufacturing and launching of that hardware could, as we have heard, be worth £3.8 billion to the UK economy.

With downstream use of data in cities such as Edinburgh, Scotland has real end-to-end capability. That might just be youthspeak. I think the phrase should be “beginning-to-end capability”: it includes design, manufacture, launch and operation of satellites, and utilisation of the data, all taking place here in Scotland.

To sum up the future prospects for Scotland’s space industry, I will wind up by quoting another American President. Richard Nixon said:

“The sky is no longer the limit.”

That said, budgets are limited. We will not support Tavish Scott’s amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, because it provides no explanation of costings or of what it is intended the “enterprise zones” that he is interested in will do. I close with that remark.

I was not quite sure where Richard Nixon’s quote began and ended, but I do not think that he said, “I’ll not be supporting Tavish Scott’s amendment.” I am sure that that is not the point.

It has been a pleasure to take part in the debate, which has featured three Scotts—not just John and Tavish but also Montgomery.

It is clear that everybody who has taken part in the debate is very serious about our ambitions for Scotland’s space sector. That theme has run through members’ speeches. Unlike many other members, Daniel Johnson and Gordon Lindhurst did not put in a bid for a launch site; instead, they talked about the great strengths, including on data science, that Edinburgh brings to the party. Over the coming decades, the people who work in data science will probably get the biggest financial benefit from the space sector.

John Scott and Kenny Gibson talked about Ayrshire and Prestwick, which the Scottish Government is very keen to support. I was intrigued by Kenny Gibson’s time machine, which took him back to the Bay Horse in 19-whenever-it-was.

The minister mentioned big data. Will he say a little about the additionality of the Ayrshire growth deal and the data centre that was announced as part of that? Will he explain how that will benefit Prestwick and provide another reason for it being the location of choice?

As John Scott mentioned, the Ayrshire growth deal will support the creation of the aerospace and space innovation centre, which will be a central hub for encouraging growth and supporting aerospace and space businesses in the area. It will make a significant contribution to Ayrshire and the sector.

Dean Lockhart mentioned the UK industrial strategy. I make it clear that, at every opportunity, I encourage businesses, universities and others across all sectors to bid into the industrial strategy challenge fund, to make sure that Scotland gets at least its fair share of the money that is available to develop the various sectors here.

I thank Clare Adamson for not putting in a bid for a spaceport, which was very welcome. When she spoke about the opportunities with regard to space debris, she opened up another area, which was also touched on by Rhoda Grant. It is important that we respect the environmental aspects of the issue, whether by dealing with space debris or in the design and operation of the technology or the type of fuel that launch vehicles use, but opportunities for commercial development exist in those areas, too, as Clare Adamson highlighted.

An important issue that came up was that of inspiration. David Stewart and Rhoda Grant talked about how we can leverage the romance of space to inspire young people to get involved in STEM careers. This morning, I was at a datafest event with Primary Engineer, the City of Glasgow College and the data lab innovation centre in Glasgow. Pupils from a number of primary schools were there to take part in a competition in which—

Please stop for a moment, Mr McKee. It is getting loud again. I say this every time: it is not fair to members who have taken part in the debate or to the minister for members to chat. Let us hear what the minister has to say. The members who have taken part in the debate are interested; if you are not interested, just sit there and be quiet.

The pupils were presenting on how they were using data. The way the young people were using spreadsheets and analysing data was very impressive. I made the point to them that one of the big uses of data in future will be for the space industry. I encourage the industry to raise its profile proactively in schools and encourage young people to get involved in studying STEM subjects and in STEM careers, using the hook of the space industry as an attraction.

I will talk briefly about enterprise zones, which Tavish Scott raised and which appear in the Lib Dem amendment. As I said in my opening speech, we are looking at enterprise zones, but I do not want to commit at this stage. The review by Scottish Enterprise is under way and the issue will be considered in the round when we know what the evidence says on where and for what sectors such zones are best deployed.

I have been struck by the energy and enthusiasm of everyone involved in the space sector, in both the public and private sectors, and in the chamber this afternoon. Everyone is showing a willingness to take innovative approaches to new challenges. It is important to remember that more than 7,500 people are already employed in Scotland’s space sector. Scotland is already the largest producer of small satellites in Europe, as a number of members have mentioned. We probably know more about what is happening in space than we do about what is happening on planet Brexit, but that is another story.

Those are real achievements, creating jobs and wealth for Scotland. We will build on our existing strengths to deliver full end-to-end space sector capability in build, launch and operation. We will encourage investment in the sector, to realise its full potential for Scotland. We are already attracting world-leading companies to all parts of Scotland, and we want it to be clear that Scotland is not only involved in the space sector but is a global leader. Our ambition, as the First Minister has clearly said, is for Scotland to be seen as an inventor and a producer, and not just a consumer, of goods and, in this case, space services. Perhaps that is nowhere more true than in the fast-growing space sector.

As a number of members have said, we aim to capture £4 billion of space-related business in Scotland by 2030. With the size of the prize within our reach, it is not surprising that there is fierce competition, as we witnessed this afternoon with members clearly passionate in advocating—

Will the minister reflect on the need to focus on consolidation? We have seen flurries of activity in the past, such as in the computer industry in the 1980s, where there have been spin-outs from academic work, only to see that evaporate. Should that be addressed in the strategy?

That is an important point. As any sector evolves and develops, there is a flurry of activity at the start. It is not the place of the Government to say who the winners and losers will be. That will happen through a process of merger and development. It is hugely encouraging that there are so many start-ups, and we will watch that process closely to see how it evolves. We are in the early stages. The more businesses start up with great ideas, the better. That is to be encouraged.

We are already seeing economic benefits flow from developments in the space sector. The Orbex rocket factory in Forres, which I have visited, has been mentioned. Colin Beattie mentioned Skyrora and its new rocket facility in Loanhead. Scotland now has two rocket manufacturers based here. Members have mentioned the major investments at Prestwick, with ambitions for the first horizontal launch facility, and the aerospace and space innovation centre. There are also Shetland’s space centre’s plans for satellite-tracking and vertical-launch facilities; the aspirations for vertical launch in the Western Isles; the potential of the Machrihanish airstrip; the small-satellite manufacturing cluster that is going from strength to strength in Glasgow; and the space data applications businesses in Edinburgh and across the country. There are no doubt many others.

The enterprise agencies are ready and willing to support viable business proposals. The Scottish Government, working with the industry leadership council, is looking at what else we can do to support the sector further, including as I mentioned the review of enterprise zones. Our ambition is to have at least one spaceport in Scotland. With the market for launching small satellites expected to grow to 2,000 by 2030, there could be scope for many more.

We need to ensure that a team Scotland approach prevails, with the public and private sectors working together to deliver our ambition for the sector. It is a great ambition—to have a fully integrated space sector, building satellites and rockets, launching satellites, and gathering and using data from the satellites.

Scotland might be a small nation, but we are open, agile and flexible. We are already punching above our weight globally and, given the rapidly growing global space industry, now is the time for us to step up and seize the opportunity to make Scotland Europe’s leading space nation.

The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S5M-16365, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Landfill Tax (Standard Rate and Lower Rate) Order 2019 be approved.—[Graeme Dey]

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

I believe that Keith Brown wants to raise a point of order.

I wish to raise a point of order on what, I believe, was a false statement that was made by James Kelly today during First Minister’s question time. He stated that the budget that was recently agreed by the Parliament has resulted in, among other alleged results, the ending of support for the citizens advice bureau in Clackmannanshire. I have had it confirmed that Clackmannanshire Council has provided exactly the same funding in this year’s budget as it did last year. I am also aware that the leader of Clackmannanshire Council has written to James Kelly to confirm those facts, and that the manager of the citizens advice bureau in Clackmannanshire has written to the council to thank it for its support.

There can be only two possible explanations for James Kelly’s statement. The first is that, in his research, he displayed the same contempt for the facts that he, his party leader and his party have demonstrated at every budget—no facts, no proposals, no effort and no credibility. The second possibility is that he made the statement in full knowledge of the facts merely to scare voters in my constituency, many of whom will vote in a council by-election in a fortnight. Those can be the only explanations for previous statements that have been made by James Kelly and, indeed, by Richard Leonard, in asserting that the council proposed to close two schools—two schools that remain open.

Presiding Officer, I would be grateful for your ruling. I respectfully request that James Kelly be given the opportunity to correct the record in the same public forum that he made his false statement: this chamber. He should confirm which of the two explanations caused him to make the statement, offer an unreserved apology for getting his facts so spectacularly wrong, and apologise to my constituents, whom he has needlessly made apprehensive through his deplorable statement that the excellent and vital services that Clackmannanshire Council’s citizens advice bureau provides might be jeopardised. It would appear that he made the statement for mere party-political advantage.

I thank Keith Brown for giving me advance notice that he intended to raise a point of order. I am sure that James Kelly will have heard Keith Brown’s remarks. James Kelly is aware—as all members are—that, if any member believes that a statement is inaccurate, a mechanism exists to correct the record.

There are five questions to be put as a result of today’s business.

The first question is, that amendment S5M-16312.2, in the name of Edward Mountain, which seeks to amend motion S5M-16312, in the name of Ivan McKee, on building on Scotland’s strengths in technology and engineering to become Europe’s leading space nation, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 79, Against 21, Abstentions 0.

Amendment agreed to.

The next question is, that amendment S5M-16312.3, in the name of David Stewart, which seeks to amend motion S5M-16312, in the name of Ivan McKee, be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

The next question is, that amendment S5M-16312.1, in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend motion S5M-16312, in the name of Ivan McKee, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 19, Against 81, Abstentions 0.

Amendment disagreed to.

The next question is, that motion S5M-16312, in the name of Ivan McKee, on building on Scotland’s strengths in technology and engineering to become Europe’s leading space nation, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The result of the division is: For 79, Against 21, Abstentions 0.

Motion, as amended, agreed to,

That the Parliament welcomes the rapid growth of the Scottish space sector; notes that it now accounts for 18% of all jobs in the UK space industry; encourages investment in support of the ambition to deliver a full end-to-end space sector capability in Scotland, to build, launch and operate satellites; agrees that now is the time to take advantage of the strengths that Scotland has in technology, engineering and data science to realise this ambition; further agrees that Scotland’s clear strengths in small satellite manufacturing and space data are starting points for success, laying the foundations for Scotland to become Europe’s leading space nation, and considers that this success will be enhanced by Scotland’s plan to become the site of the first spaceport in Europe; welcomes both the Space Industry Act 2018 and the UK Government’s Industrial Strategy, which includes support for a £50 million programme to support small satellite launches and sub-orbital flight from UK spaceports; notes the crucial diversification to the Scottish economy that the space sector provides; considers that future commercial viability will be dependent on the European small satellite launch on demand service, and notes the comparative advantage that Scotland enjoys for spaceport location by providing access to sun-synchronous and polar orbits.

The final question is, that motion S5M-16365, in the name of Graeme Dey, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Landfill Tax (Standard Rate and Lower Rate) Order 2019 be approved.

James Kelly has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

At col 22, paragraph 4—

Original text—

The recent Scottish National Party-Green budget resulted in councils being forced to make cuts and to pass them on to local communities. Therefore, we have job cuts in Dundee, the ending of support to the citizens advice bureau in Clackmannanshire and the axing of free school bus travel in Moray.

Corrected text—

The recent Scottish National Party-Green budget resulted in councils being forced to make cuts and to pass them on to local communities. Therefore, we have job cuts in Dundee and the axing of free school bus travel in Moray.