Official Report 497KB pdf
Agenda item 2 is the proposed cross-party group on space. I welcome to the meeting Colin Beattie MSP, who is the proposed convener of the proposed cross-party group. I invite Colin to make an opening statement on the group’s intentions and the interest that there has been in it.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to say a few words in support of the proposed cross-party group on space.
It is really all rather exciting. I know that members will have read the purpose of the group. They will have noticed in that document that we talked about the importance of the space sector to the economy of Scotland and to the wider United Kingdom. In that regard, I have been in touch with the chair of the Westminster all-party parliamentary group on space, and we have agreed that we will liaise and do the best that we can to have a joined-up approach.
There is very little awareness of how much the space industry contributes to the Scottish economy and of how we can help to develop it. According to the industry, there are currently 97 companies—Scottish small and medium-sized enterprises and rather larger companies—involved in Scotland. If members look at the list of non-MSP members of the proposed group, they will see Airbus, Lockheed Martin, the UK Government’s Department for International Trade and a number of others, including universities. A number of others are in the process of moving down the road of signing up.
Scotland is home to a fifth of the space jobs in the UK. Fifty-two per cent of nanosatellites in the world are produced in Glasgow. Therefore, we have a huge commitment to the space industry.
Alongside that, the number of space businesses has increased by 65 per cent since 2016. That is evident in the numbers that are we are seeing—and the number of space businesses is still expanding. We are leading the way on the space industry. For example, the UK Astronomy Technology Centre, which is based at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, is the national centre of excellence for the development of scientific instrumentation and facilities for ground and space-based astronomy. The Phoenix-based Mangata Networks, which is described as
“an innovative satellite-enabled cloud services company”,
has said that Ayrshire will be the centre for its research and development activities as well as satellite manufacturing, which will, of course, increase the proportion of satellites produced in Scotland. It will create 575 jobs at the new space research and development facility.
From astronomy to pure science, manufacturing, launch, and data use and application, the sector is a complex one with a wide-ranging and transformational impact. The exciting work that is taking place in Scotland needs a platform for discussion and to highlight to parliamentarians the world-leading changing innovations that are happening on our doorstep in Scotland.
Since the application form was submitted, two other organisations—Skyrora and Global Trek Aviation—have signed up. I have a particular feeling for Skyrora because it is in my constituency, I have stood beside its rockets and it really is impressive. That really is exciting.
We have 23 of the 97 organisations signed up and we are in discussion with many more. I am also pleased that the establishment of the CPG has attracted attention from the various political parties. It is rare to have representatives of four different political parties signed up to a cross-party group. These days, we struggle to get two or three to do that. That demonstrates the interest and the need for the cross-party group, and I think it will strengthen and increase in size.
On possible duplications or overlaps, the CPG on aviation used to touch on space, but, from the minutes, that appeared to be rare and it did not touch on the breadth and depth of the space industry, which is on a huge scale. The group seemed to focus more on the large commercial airlines, airports and travel agent groups. Bringing focus to the huge and growing space industry in Scotland is tremendously important. The sector simply warrants a dedicated CPG, as no other CPG fully captures it.
I am aware that there is a large number of CPGs, which is why I am here. I have been careful not to commit myself to a large number of CPGs this session, so that I can keep my focus on the CPGs of which I am convener and member. I believe that the members who have signed up to this CPG will have had the same considerations.
The CPG has three deputy conveners and me as convener, which will ensure that proper support can be given to the CPG and will give other MSPs the capacity to step in should someone not be available.
The group plans to meet about four times a year, more or less in the same way as other CPGs, but we will be a bit flexible on that. We are dealing with a lot of people and a complex and wide industry, so we will be a wee bit flexible about when we meet.
Given the support within the Parliament and from the industry groups, our link with the Westminster APPG, and the fact that we even have UK Government departments as members, which is probably a first, there is a strong case for this CPG, and I hope that the committee will give it due consideration.
Thank you, Colin. It is nice to see—and I mean this in the most polite of ways—the almost juvenile excitement about Skyrora signing up to the group. It speaks to an interesting time with regard to space here, in Scotland, where there is almost that childhood excitement about rockets and satellites. The reality is that a significant number of jobs already exist in the industry, as you have indicated.
Before I invite other members of the committee to contribute, can you confirm the extent of what you are covering with regard to space? I could read the quote about the final frontier if it covers everything. Your interest is in the launch site facilities and the engineering behind the production of satellites and all the supply chains into that in Scotland—is that right?
That is correct. We are taking a wide focus at this point. In our early meetings, I expect that the members will indicate where they need to focus attention through the CPG in order to gain awareness of the issues that the industry faces. I know that there will be regulatory issues and so on, some of which lie with the Scottish Government and some of which lie with the UK Government. The link between the two cross-party groups at the opposite ends of the country will be really useful for lobbying for what is needed to make sure that the industry is successful.
Thank you. That is helpful. Do any other committee members have any questions? I will start at the far end, with Alexander Stewart.
Thank you, convener, and thank you, Mr Beattie, for a good synopsis and an introduction to where you are in the process. You have identified the gap in the market where the Parliament can be actively involved.
What are your initial plans? You have a huge amount of information and many organisations involved, so how do you plan to streamline that to capture what is required of such a progressive industry? You have already identified a massive market and opportunity, but you need to streamline that so that the CPG benefits from that early in its existence.
Clearly, it is a huge industry and there is a limit to what a CPG can do in meeting perhaps four times a year. As I see it, we would focus on two areas. One is the information side, which is about ensuring that MSPs are informed and understand the developments and what is happening. The other area, which is something that we will have to talk to the industry members about, is about where there are weaknesses or things that we can do to lobby or persuade. You will understand the limitations of a CPG, but, where there are problems and glitches, we can raise them to the surface and maybe collectively help with them.
I am interested in the cross-party group, although I have not explored it in any great detail. I should declare an interest in that the West of Scotland Science Park is in my constituency of Maryhill and Springburn, where we have a number of very successful technology companies that are actively involved in the space sector. Therefore, Maryhill has a footprint in space.
I may join this cross-party group if it is afforded recognition, but the time constraints that I am under are such that I would not take on an office-bearer position and I might only come to an occasional meeting that had a particular constituency interest. I understand the time constraints that MSPs are under. You are the convener of three cross-party groups already, and you want to become the convener of a fourth. That is a significant time commitment. Do you feel that you have sufficient time to commit to being convener of four cross-party groups?
This cross-party group has already attracted a huge amount of attention and interest. MSPs become engaged in things for different reasons. It is partly about their own interests and partly about the interests of their constituents and so on. As far as the space CPG is concerned, the level of interest is probably the highest that I have seen in a long time. You talk about perhaps having time only to drop in on discussions that relate to your constituency. That is absolutely fine; indeed, it would be encouraged.
I was talking about your time constraints rather than mine. You are convener of three cross-party groups, and you would become the convener of a fourth. Every potential cross-party group in the future will be asked similar questions—there is nothing specific to you or this cross-party group. It is a significant commitment to be convener of four cross-party groups. Do you feel that you can give it the time that it deserves?
Yes, I do. The industry members are taking on the secretarial and administration work. They are providing all the support, so the impact on my office will be relatively low. There will have to be input from the convener and, I hope, the active MSPs, but I am absolutely certain that I have the time. I would not have gone into this if I did not believe that I had the time to commit to the group. Frankly, given the nature of what we are looking at, it is a priority for Scotland and for the rest of the UK. It would be a serious deficiency—I almost said “space”—in the range of CPGs that we provide if this vital area was not covered.
I will follow that up a little. If this group is accepted, it will be the eighth cross-party group of which you are a member. I convene two cross-party groups that have lots of really good purposes. One is that they can connect a sector in a way in which it would not otherwise be connected. Do you feel that the space industry is already well connected as a sector and that it already has good links with government at all levels, whether that is local authorities, the Scottish Government or the UK Government? I ask that question because you mentioned that it would be a “serious deficiency” if we did not have this cross-party group and that, where problems emerge, the group could be a vehicle for tackling some of them. Can you give an example of what those problems are, or is everything tickety-boo at the moment? What are the issues?
In the early stages of discussions, when we were putting the group together, a couple of areas were highlighted that were causing some issues. One was about Government policy, both north and south of the border, and the lack of clarification that would allow the industry to develop. There were also concerns about regulatory constraints, because the regulations are not moving as fast as the space industry is. That is a UK issue that we would hope to highlight and explore with the APPG in Westminster.
09:45We need a joined-up approach on this, because a lot of the companies that are signing up are operating north and south of the border. Things will be a little bit complicated until we get them bedded in, but, if we can make it work, the benefits to Scotland will be significant.
As you know, cross-party groups have no actual power, but they have the power of ensuring that views are heard and publicised and that people understand what the issues are. Government ministers are generous with their time when it comes to attending CPGs, which can help them to understand the issues.
There are a lot of issues around CPGs that deal with various competing bodies—some of the bodies that we are talking about are competitors, and I suspect that Airbus and Lockheed Martin are not commercially joined at the hip. However, if those issues are, indeed, important, they can be worked out by the participants who are pushing for the CPG—and they are pushing for it, because they see a value in it. There are many common issues—around planning, regulation and policy—and we can help to focus minds and bring those issues together. The work that is done will be much more powerful if it can be done in tandem in Scotland and at Westminster.
I apologise that I used the expression “tickety-boo” in a committee meeting—can we strike that from the record forthwith?
I am glad that I pushed you on the issue, Mr Beattie, because that was the first time that I have heard you describe what emerging issues there could be in the sector that MSPs would want to be sighted on and take forward on a cross-party basis, which are those that relate to clarity of Government policy in Scotland and the UK and the regulatory regime. We are starting to hit on things where there could be a public interest in MSPs pushing matters forward within the Parliament’s cross-party group system. What you have said gives me a lot more certainty about the benefit of this cross-party group, and I thank you for that.
Thank you for attending, Mr Beattie. The committee will now consider whether to approve the application, and the clerks will inform you of our decision in due course.
Under agenda item 3, the committee will consider whether to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party group on space. Are there any comments?
I have a general comment, although it might be unfair to Mr Beattie. My last line of questioning was quite important because, before that, although I was getting a picture of a powerful, dynamic and growing industry in Scotland and the UK, which is good news, I was a little unclear about the benefit to Parliament of having the CPG—I could see the benefit for the sector, of course—other than in just helping MSPs to be informed. However, by the end of that exchange, Mr Beattie had outlined some of that.
The Parliament is not very good at auditing whether cross-party groups actually fulfil their aspirations. That observation is not specific to this proposed cross-party group, but it feeds into the discussion that we will have later about cross-party groups more generally, so I want to put that on the record. The cross-party group that we have just discussed had some significant ambition, but, with all cross-party groups, we might have to look a little more carefully at whether they fulfil what they say that they want to achieve when they appear before this committee to seek recognition.
You have certainly anticipated our later agenda item. Thank you for that.
As I always do whenever we consider an application from a cross-party group, I will simply place on record my view about the number of cross-party groups in the Parliament. I know that we are coming on to that, but I will continue to say it until I believe that we have resolved the issue, and I do not think that we have yet.
As there are no further comments, does the committee agree to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party group?
Members indicated agreement.
Air adhart
Correspondence