COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE PROGRAMME

HC Deb 21 December 1960 vol 632 cc1383-405

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

I believe the subject of a British communications satellite programme to be one of momentous importance to the House and to the country, and I very much regret that the House cannot have more time in which to debate it today. I hope that those hon. Members on both sides of the House who are associated with me in this matter will have time to speak, but I am sure that they will understand that I have not a long time to present a case which involves an historic decision—that is no understatement—by the Government.

In the Blue Streak debate I said that a nation which allows the main branch of its technology to stand still and which fails to direct its scientific manpower cannot expect to be competitive in the twentieth century. Since that debate nothing of a practical nature has happened to indicate that the Government appreciate the significance of this point in respect of its application to certain fields of space research. The Government must expect criticism of a far sharper nature on these matters today and in the future. I am bound to say that in regard to the application of satellites for communication purposes the Government still do not seem to have grasped the technological and commercial possibilities. They are, says the Post Office, making studies, but for how long have they been making them? I know that they have sent a mission to the United States and also that their engineering department has some knowledge of the subject, but what machinery have they set up of an effective kind, beyond some desultory talks with certain firms and scientists? They really must come clean on this matter for, as I shall show, time is running very short for Britain to maintain any kind of independent position in the field of space communications.

Is this due to an attitude of mind on scientific subjects on the part of the present system of Government? I think it is and I think it is for back-bench Members of this House and of another place to seek by debate an approach to these problems which is up to date and not hidebound by classical methods of administration, and, in some cases, ignorance of basic scientific concepts. As Members of Parliament we can seldom be technicians in this field, but I think we can show a willingness to follow scientific progress. I think, too, that many people both inside and outside this House feel that only schoolboys will see the first benefits of satellite communications. This is absolute nonsense. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General—I am glad to see that she is present for this debate, as most of what I am going to say is directed to the Post Office—in answering the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) this morning about what studies had been made into these possibilities, said that it was "early days".

Early days in what sense? It is certainly not early days for the American programme, about which I wish to say something to the House. It is not early days to make proper investigation into the feasibility of a communications satellite, particularly as we have not even decided yet on the launching vehicle. If this is the attitude of the Government Department which is chiefly concerned, that is to say, the Post Office, then my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ought to order an urgent inquiry into the whole problem. I am going to suggest that he should set up a space communications committee, a special body, at Cabinet level and give it publicity throughout industry, both public and private. It is not a question of early days; this application of space research is virtually in the engineering stage, as I shall show.

As I said, I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General present, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation, who, I understand, is to reply to this debate, has always shown a very intelligent and keen interest in the subject. I speak as one of his predecessors in answering awkward debates in the past, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not take personally what I am saying, but that he will, of course, look at the record. We have had several debates on space research of a rather nebulous character and many hon. Members have taken an active part in bringing this matter before the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) has done Trojan work in the Council of Europe and the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) and Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) have for several years pressed this matter, as has the hon. Member for Pembroke.

Although this debate is limited to satellite communicants, I would make mention of what has been happening in the past in regard to space research as a whole. As long ago as May, 1959, the Prime Minister said that design studies were being put in hand for adopting military rockets for space purposes, and in a debate on 22nd February, 1960, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) was informed that work was still in hand on the Blue Streak and Black Knight projects for space research. On 29th July, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation said that we should not have to wait very long. Well, in my opinion, we have been waiting much too long. The question is, how long can de Havilland's and the taxpayers be expected to keep the Blue Streak programme going without any sign from on high as to what is going to happen?

I agree that there should be international discussions and I am speaking of a British programme in the widest sense of that word. But I am not of the opinion that Her Majesty's Government's decision depends on these international discussions. We have already been told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation that Blue Streak would be available to those taking part in a European programme and it is clear that we have something to sell. If things go on as they are, I am afraid it will be too late to reactivate the Blue Streak programme. That would be a complete disaster.

The House and those in another place formed an all-party committee on space research, of which I had the honour to be chairman, in the earlier part of this year. Hon. Members from both sides of this House and noble Lords have had discussions with the representatives of various firms—de Havillands, Hawker Siddeley, E.M.I. Electronics and Pye Telecommunications. We are indebted to the representatives of those firms, particularly to Mr. Pardoe, Dr. Hilton, Mr. Brinkley of Pye and others for the very useful information on their studies into the possibility of an intercommunications programme. We are also indebted to the British Interplanetary Society. The object of our all-party committee is to get reliable information on these matters.

We have studied proposals for using British satellites and British launchers and most of us are convinced that it is an attractive economic proposition for this country. On this basis the cost of the further development of Blue Streak and Black Knight is justified. My hon. Friend should impress this on the Augustan scholars of the Treasury, because I believe it can be established that this is a feasible proposition. There are also other potential benefits in space research which we shall not have time to discuss today.

On the question of communications, the future responsibilities of the Post Office and possible commercial benefits to the Post Office, it is relevant to say that at the moment the British Commonwealth handles half the world's international traffic through our successful investment in the past in long-distance submarine cables and radio-telephone systems. I should mention the proposal for a new round the world cable, the so-called Commonwealth cable, which, I understand, is to cost about £88 million.

Although that is so, there is imminent and immense competition from the American telephone companies through the Bell Telephone Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, which are launching vast programmes for satellite communications. I hope the hon. Member for Bosworth will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because he knows a great deal about the proposals of the Bell Telephone Company. The A.T. and T. has a proposal for twenty-six ground stations and fifty satellites in operation, producing 600 telephone channels and one television channel. That is the sort of scale on which the Americans are proposing to work. If these proposals were accepted it is thought that they would provide part coverage of the world—and we are talking about a world telephone service—possibly in three to five years.

My theory, which is shared by many who are associated with me in these studies, is that our customers will lose interest in our cables if that development of American satellites takes place on a world basis without our doing anything to supplement it by a British satellite system. In any event, our cables are at present overloaded. I wish to make a few remarks about the actual proposals for the use of satellites for communication purposes and how they should be launched. It is well known to those who have studied the matter—although I certainly would not claim technical knowledge of these questions—that a satellite's height above the ground makes it a very suitable vehicle for use as a radio relay station. We can have a passive satellite simply reflecting radio waves back to the earth or an active satellite deriving electric power from the sun through solar cells to drive radio equipment and to retransmit signals. These are the types of satellite which we are considering when talking of a global public telephone service.

I hope that other hon. Members will have a few minutes in the debate, because they are aware that de Havilland and Hawker-Siddeley have made some very constructive proposals and have gone into the economics of these matters. They have proposals, for instance, to launch satellites of 300 and 400 lb. into orbit at 5,000 to 6,000 miles altitude. The proposals of the two firms differ slightly, one of them being on a 24-hour basis and one only for the day-time, but they all agree that these are feasible with the Blue Streak—Black Knight type of rocket launcher. Whether the programme is limited to daylight or not and whether different emphasis is put on the type of orbit used, there can be no doubt about the economic possibilities.

I ask again how much the Post Office knows about this. May we be told what they are doing about it? I believe that this matter needs co-ordination, as I said earlier in my speech, at a very high level and that it is a matter for the Prime Minister himself. If the Post Office does know, how far has it advised my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to investment in these proposals for the future benefit of the Post Office and what plans has it made?

The second point is how are these satellites to be launched? Again, I cannot go into the matter in any great detail. In the debate on Blue Streak I mentioned that I am a director of a firm which has a financial interest in Blue Streak, and I should mention that again. I should like the Government to come down very definitely in favour of the Blue Streak—Black Knight programme. Woomera is an ideal launching site, and by making Black Knight the upper stage of this launching vehicle I am sure that it could be done efficiently, because we know that Black Knight is accurate and we know that Blue Streak is technically of a high order. This would best be done through a single agency or a consortium for manufacture.

I turn to the economics of this problem. Rough estimates over a 20-year programme allow for £1 million for each attempted launching of the rocket and £1 million approximately for each ground station—and we shall be using ground stations. There is a set of figures which have been produced and which I hope will be studied by the Post Office and the Government generally most carefully. They show that this is an economic proposition. I need hardly say that I hope that the technical supervision by the Government which the Public Accounts Committee has recommended for guided missiles will also be applied here; I should say that as a matter of responsibility. But over a 20-year period it would cost only £70 million for launchings—that is to say, 70 launchings; and £7 million for the maintenance of the satellite. The maintenance of the ground stations would cost more—£160 million—making a total outlay of £243 million in a 20-year programme. The actual cost in the first year would be £7 million, rising to the highest annual outlay of about £20 million.

The next thing is the cost rate per minute per channel, in which hon. Members and the Government no doubt will take an interest when discussing this problem in the future. The subject merits a far longer debate than that we are having today, and I hope that on a future occasion we shall be able to have a much more full-dress debate on it. It is calculated by these companies that the cost rate per minute per channel would be about £1 for the first three years and 10s. for the next three years. The income shows a gross profit of £90 million in the third year. In the seventeenth year we should be down to 6d. per minute per channel, with an annual gross profit of £50–£60 million in the later years. If hon. Members will study those figures, I think they will agree that they would compare very favourably with almost any trend of reduction in the present high international telephone rates of from £1 to £1 5s. per minute. In any case it would show an economic trend.

These costs exclude research and development on Blue Streak; the total cost, as the House has been told, was £70 million up to April, 1960. If we allow £70 million for the subsequent space development programme these costs could certainly be borne by the communication system itself and could be amortised on a basis which would prove economic. They are rough estimates, but they should be urgently studied.

I will finish so that other hon. Members can say what they wish about this very important matter, but I conclude by saying that this House should insist, if necessary, on further discussion after the Recess on this question of an all-British system. Using American satellites is not, I consider, a serious proposition. I think it is an absolute fallacy to say that it would be less expensive. This is a civil and commercial programme. What would the Americans think they were entitled to charge us? In the commercial field I do not think the Americans would give the General Post Office the same facilities as they would give the American telephone companies in competition. On the question of launching sites and facilities, I do not believe that the use of American satellites would make sense economically.

I believe I have shown figures which, if they are studied, will show that we are completely justified in undertaking our own satellite programme and our own launching programme as well.

I repeat that in my opinion the solution is for my right hon. Friend to set up an organisation linking industry and the Government at Cabinet level to get things going at top priority. I have some experience at a junior Ministerial level of how difficult these things are to do, but I am sure that is the right way to do it. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members and my hon. Friend that British space vehicles are justified in their own right and I repeat to the House that this is a most momentous and historic decision. I hope that it has fired the imaginations of hon. Members and of the Government and that there will be a desire for action.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt (Bosworth)

Fortunately, the shortage of time has not prevented the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) from making a most excellent and comprehensive speech. In it the hon. Member has put forward the bones of an argument for a British space programme and, in particular, for a communication satellite, which we are talking about today. The trouble behind this is that the Government do not realise that the competitive position of Britain is all-important for future exports. It is no use coasting along on yesterday's ideas when other nations are pushing ahead. The technologies are important. It is not science fiction, as the Government seem to think. It is hard cash. Yet the Government go on dithering without making a decision.

In February this year I sent a memorandum on behalf of the British Interplanetary Society to the Prime Minister. That memorandum urged immediate action. We were sent to see the Minister of Science and his advisers. They seemed to be almost totally ignorant of the practical and commercial possibilities of space and they asked us for a further memorandum to explain these commercial and practical possibilities. We sent that second memorandum immediately. Eight months later the Government still have not grasped the point.

On Monday of last week the Minister of Science gave a fatuous and frivolous interview on Southern Television on space. In that interview the Minister for Science said the whole of his Ministry could be put into an omnibus, thus glorying in the British addiction to amateurism and showing that he did not care a hoot about space. The Minister also said that he thought no sort of proof had been produced that a space programme, whether for communication satellites or anything else, could show a commercial profit. This shows a horrifying complacency and a terrifying unwillingness to find out the facts. The Government know. Indeed, all the facts have been brought to them by private individuals. They have never gone out to try to find out about this themselves. We have had to bring them information.

The hon. Member for Abingdon has demonstrated effectively how a communication satellite system could be profitable, and I would like to reinforce that.

In October this year the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and the Bell Telephone Company officially put forward a comprehensive scheme to the Federal Communications Commission in America. As the hon. Member said, this involved a worldwide communication network using space satellites which initially would cost £60 million, but they estimated the revenue from the operations at something like £1,000 million a year. As the operating costs are very low, nearly all of this would be profit. This may be exaggerated. On the other hand, I think that the British estimate is very much too low. Any way, somewhere between the two estimates lies the probable profit to be made out of this, and it may be between £500 million and £1,000 million a year.

In America private enterprise is wilding to spend the money on the capital cost, because it can also take the profits from the operation, which is where the major profit lies. In Britain, the Post Office naturally takes the profit from operating our communications system. If it does not show the same initiative as American private enterprise is showing, it will fail the nation. It is no good saying that it is a nationalised industry. The Government are in charge of it. It belongs to the nation, and the nation is entitled to see that the Government show the same sort of initiative as private enterprise would in getting for Britain the enormous potential profit which lies ahead. If we do not do that, we shall be dependent on an American satellite system from which they will reap a major profit, both in operation and in the development and manufacture of the satellites, to say nothing of advancing their competitive position in the world while we stand still.

Such a scheme is easily within our grasp. Development of Blue Streak continues at a cost of £1 million a month. Blue Streak and Black Knight between them could easily set up a world-wide communication system by satellites. We have already incurred much of the capital cost by the money we have spent on Blue Streak. It would be criminal to waste that money by not now going ahead with our own space programme.

It was we British who pioneered the cable communication system throughout the world in the last century, with enormous profit to ourselves. We also pioneered the radio-telephone at a big profit. Future generations will curse us if we are left out of this new development.

The Government are now making a space programme conditional on European co-operation. That is the wrong way round. We should go ahead with our own space programme and the Europeans and the Commonwealth can come in if they please. When they see that we are making a success of it, they will fall over themselves to do so.

Australia is already very keen, and the Woomera Range is an ideal place from which to launch a satellite communication system. We must wait neither upon Europe nor upon America. If we wait upon America, as I believe the American-owned Standard Telephone Company is urging our Post Office to do, because it is one of the big features of our telephone ring in this country, we shall lose impetus to our industry, we shall lose commercial prestige throughout the world which we could otherwise have, and we shall be less able to export in the future.

There is no time left if we are to keep in the race. As the hon. Member for Abingdon said, the programme of Blue Streak cannot be kept ticking on indefinitely. Some decision must be made. We have the know-how. We have the scientists. We have the industry. We have the ability. All we lack is a Government with any boldness or belief in Britain's future. Our Victorian grandfathers would be amazed to see what spineless descendants they have sired. I urge the Government to wake up and do their duty.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

In the very short time available to me I wish to discuss one proposed satellite communication system to illustrate the very cogent and telling argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), and to show the House that in terms of hard cash there could be money in space for this country now if the Government were so minded.

To illustrate my argument I will take the design studies of de Havillands. They propose a system of eight equi-spaced satellites in orthogonal orbits. At an altitude of 6,500 miles full 24-hour continuous global coverage is ensured. That makes allowance for an effective radio horizon of about 7½ degrees above the true horizon.

The launcher for such a system is available, if we continue work on Blue Streak, Black Knight and a third-stage combination. Such a combination is capable of placing satellities weighing between 300 lb. and 400 lb. in the required 24-hour orbit. This capability is adequate, even when using audio-modulation, and conventional components and methods in a satellite with an initial capacity of from 100 to 200 telephone circuits.

That is a figure substantially above anything proposed in the Commonwealth cable link. Frequency modulation, multiplexing and pulse coding, when applied, will increase the circuit capacity many times, and the application of micro-miniaturisation techniques will produce satellites, of the same weight or less, having a capacity of 1,000 or more telephone circuits—plus one or two television circuits.

This proposed system is on a tiring programme of three attempts a year for the first five years, and five attempts a year subsequently, if and when required. American experience of success in firing, I may say, is much lower than ours. Nonetheless de Havillands allow in their design studies for a 50 per cent. initial success in firing, rising through 75 per cent. after twenty firings. They are working on the basis of an operational life of one year, rising through a 5-year operational life for satellites launched in the fourth year to a 25-year standard for satellites launched in the fifteenth year. The final aim is to establish a completely duplicated thousand-circuit capacity, 25-year life system within twenty years of the first satellite being launched.

The costings show that it would be possible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, to reduce trans-Atlantic telephone calls from the present £1 a minute to 6d. a minute in about the fifteenth or sixteenth year. As a result of this study we believe that it is possible, on the basis of market survey so far carried out, to increase the telephone communications round the world by a factor of ten.

The profit figures to which my hon. Friend referred—and which I could have developed further had there been time—show a return of over £450 million over twenty years on an outlay of about £300 million. That is good profit in any terms, even for a Government, and when we think of the capital outlays on which Her Majesty's Government have lost a lot of the taxpayers' money, I should have thought that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, like a previous one, would have a song in his heart and welcome the project enthusiastically.

I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the developments that are taking place in America, the Post Office intends to go ahead with the proposed Commonwealth round-the-world telephone cable link which is estimated to cost somewhere between £80 million and £100 million and which will be obsolete before it is laid. I wonder, too, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member far Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), looking into the future, might get his Public Accounts Committee to give its mind to this.

I now ask the question: what is holding up de Havillands at the moment? What is holding things up is Government indecision. There is indecision over Black Streak—I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us, that, at last, the Government have made up their minds to go ahead. Or are we to have continual shilly-shallying? The second thing that is holding things up is the Post Office. It is no good saying that this is something that private enterprise should do. Private enterprise cannot do it, because the responsibility is the Government's.

Viewing our affairs from the relative calm of the back benches, I begin to doubt whether the Government—or, for that matter, their democratic alternative—grievously overburdened with the affairs of the world today, understand intellectually and emotionally how man's entry into space is already shaping the world of tomorrow. Mankind is obviously entering a long new phase of exploration and development comparable to the conquest of the air and of the oceans, and vastly exceeding these in scope.

The discovery of Africa and America and the sea route to the East in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, led to changes in European life so far-reaching as to amount almost to a revolution. How much more revolutionary will be the changes arising from man's discoveries in space? Viewed historically, Britain dare not stand aside from space. At the same time, we have to recognise that we cannot possibly hope to compete on equal terms of expenditure and diversity of projects with Russia or America. Therefore, we have to select with greater care and with greater imagination than either of the continental giants those space projects which we should support. Our resources are so much smaller but they are by no means negligible. Do not let us underestimate them, as I believe Her Majesty's Government are doing at the present time.

We believe that a communications satellite system is one such project. I beg the Government to take this project seriously. I realise, of course, that to some of the older members of the Government and of the Opposition Front Bench this project must sound like space fiction, but the world has moved on. The science fiction of yesterday is the common practice of today. Dear me, Jules Verne is almost a "square" today.

I beg the Government to take courage. Too frequently on space matters the language of the Government has been the language of lions, but the actions of the Government have been the actions of mice. We hope through the alchemy of Parliamentary debate, and if necessary of Parliamentary censure, to persuade the Government that it lies within their power if they are so minded to become lions.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)

I promised the Parliamentary Secretary that I would be brief. I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on raising this subject. Indeed, I should like to congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken today, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), who have put clearly the need for Government action on this matter.

I would only say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh that I can assure him that the Opposition are not indifferent. He has indicted his own colleagues in very strong language, and we feel that there should be a decision on this matter. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) has pressed the Government time and time again, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) has been trying to obtain from the Government some statement of their attitude. Only the other day, on 12th December, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke pressed the Minister to make a statement and the Parliamentary Secretary in reply mentioned the discussions with the French Government. Then he went on to argue that we had signed an agreement with ten countries—I assume in Europe—to set up a preparatory commission to study the possibility of establishing a European organisation for co-operation in space research.

I say to the Government that I am all for co-operating with Europe, but I believe that Britain should take a lead in this matter and that we should rather have co-operation with the Commonwealth first. As has been pointed out today, we already have facilities in Australia. I was recently in Canada, where I saw developments of the possible exploitation of mineral wealth, and when I think of the potential wealth of Canada, linked with the possibilities of Australia, with the personnel which are already there, I cannot understand why Britain should not quickly make a decision to co-operate with the British Commonwealth in a space programme. We have asked the Government over and over again to take a decision on this question. Is it that the Tory Party is indifferent to action with the Commonwealth?

Why not an agreement with the Commonwealth on this? I am sure that we could initiate discussions with the Canadians as well as with the Australians, because we have all the resources there. Why should we be out of the race, as against the United States Government and, indeed, the Soviet Government? I hope hon. Members have read their Press this morning, because one of the Soviet Ministers has announced that more resources of the Soviet Union are to be diverted to space research. We cannot delay, and I would hope that this Government would at least believe in the Commonwealth. If they do not like the term "Commonwealth", they can use the term "Empire" if they like, if they think "Commonwealth" too new-fashioned, but at least Australia, Canada and this country with their combined resources could give a lead in this direction.

I know that there are a lot of political queers on the other side and that they are keen on being entangled with Europe, but let us have some action with British leadership. I do not wish to go into the details, because we shall return to this matter later on, but we cannot afford to keep out of this race. It affects the whole field of technology and engineering. It has a link with other industries, and it affects skilled manpower. Space research, in the present state of the world, excites the imagination of scientists and technicians. The whole field of electronics and metallurgy, and certain branches of chemistry, are all affected by it, and they can develop only if we are prepared to embark upon a space research programme. I hope that all those hon. Members who have spoken today will continue to press the Government vigorously and constructively to this end. Hon. Members on this side of the House will return to the subject when we resume after the Recess, and we will press it vigorously.

In many ways, however, it has become a non-party matter. The British Interplanetary Society, to which my hon. Friend referred, has already performed admirable work in this field. I hope that the Government will take heed of what has been said. Although I may be critical of the Government I wish the Minister a merry Christmas. If Santa Claus comes to us in a space ship we hope that the hon. Gentleman will take heed.

4.16 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)

My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has raised a subject which must be of great and growing interest to every hon. Member, even to those who are absent from our deliberations this evening. In this short debate we have been discussing issues of immense significance for the whole future of mankind, and all the speeches have shown a proper awareness of that fact.

I welcome the opportunity of keeping the House informed of what the Government are doing to ensure that we are in a position to participate in heavy satellite technology. I say "heavy", because communication satellites involve the use of a powerful launcher. There is a clear distinction between what we have been discussing today and the programme based on Skylark, the successful firings of Black Knight and the joint programme in the United States, using the Scout, and even the Preparatory Commission which has been set up to study the possibilities of establishing a European space research organisation.

I am glad that everyone who has spoken has adopted an eminently practical approach. If we are going to adopt a programme of this kind the public wants to know what beneficial results can be expected. A recent report presented to the United States Congress on "The Practical Values of Space Exploration" opened with this refreshing declaration: The United States has not embarked upon this formidable program of space exploration in order to make or perpetuate a gigantic astronautic boondoggle. The report goes on to list what it calls the "pay-offs". They cover a wide variety of matters, and they have been referred to in the memorandum of the British Interplanetary Society, to which the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt) referred. I can assure him that this has been studied widely and with great interest. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) also referred to these other possibilities.

They are all worthy of study, but in determining whether or not a United Kingdom satellite programme would be a profitable technological investment I am sure it is right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon has done, to consider, first, the possibilities of a communication satellite. This is no astronautic boondoggle. Both British and American experts are confident that the purely technical problems can be solved within the next few years. There seems no doubt about that.

To this end Post Office and Ministry of Aviation scientists and engineers are already making a joint study of the design of ground stations and satellites, as well as the important question of overall system design. These studies are concerned both with the technical and with the economic aspects of satellites. Naturally, we shall at the appropriate stage seek the co-operation of private industry. We are well aware of the thought that private industry is devoting to this matter. Reference has been made this afternoon to the work of the advanced projects groups of Hawker-Siddeley Aviation and de Havilland.

Mr. Neave

Will my hon. Friend say something about my proposal that the Government should set up some kind of Committee which included industry for these studies?

Mr. Rippon

My hon. Friend and all speakers have made the point that this is a historic subject of immense importance. The Cabinet itself is, naturally, acting in collaboration on a matter of this kind, and I do not believe that we shall solve the problem by having another joint committee.

Many different types of system have been proposed. For example, a system might be constructed using a large number of satellites in the form of passive reflectors of radio waves. The experimental American satellite called Echo I was of this type. It does, however, raise several problems. In the first place, very large radio power would be needed at ground transmitting stations. Secondly, receiving stations would not only have to move their aerials so as continuously to point directly at the moving satellite but they would frequently have to switch from one satellite to another as each one moved across the sky.

The alternative system, which is the one both American and British experts seem to favour today, would make use of active satellites, that is to say, satellites which would carry radio receivers and transmitters which would receive, amplify and retransmit the signals instead of just reflecting them. With this system, the ground stations would be much simpler but the satellites themselves would more complex. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh went into some of the possibilities, and we certainly have in mind all he said.

The problem of system design includes the study of the type of orbit to be chosen for the satellites, which can be circular or elliptical, close to the earth or far away. It is possible to choose a particular circular orbit for a satellite at about 22,000 miles from the earth which results in the satellite appearing to remain stationary when viewed from the earth's surface. Three such satellites could be so placed as to result in one or other being visible and therefore potentially available for communications purposes from every country in the world except for certain limited areas near the Poles.

This system has some disadvantages, and it may well be better to have a larger number of satellites in closer orbit. At 5,000 or 6,000 miles from the earth, a dozen or two dozen satellites would be needed. At 2,500 miles the number of satellites might be increased to at least 50. Although I believe that the purely technical problems may be overcome, whatever orbit is chosen, there will be formidable difficulties. A large number of satellites may well be involved in a single system. Each must be kept accurately in its orbit and accurately tracked by the associated ground stations.

All these technical problems, albeit they may be overcome, make estimates of costs necessarily speculative at this stage. I note with interest what hon. Members have said, and a great deal has appeared in the Press on this subject. One really cannot be very definite about costs at this stage. Of particular significance in this respect will be the continuing charges, including depreciation and maintenance. These cannot be known until we have rather more reliable information on the useful life of a satellite. Clearly, experiments are needed to guide us towards the answer to these important questions.

The most promising area for the tests is in the North Atlantic. We have had preliminary talks with our friends in Canada and in the United States, and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, as he has told the House, hopes to be able to take part in very valuable tests. I hope that they will take place within the next year or so. We envisage putting two or three satellites into polar orbit. We would share the information resulting from the tests, but, of course, that does not necessarily imply a joint communications programme.

Much has been said about the potentially large communications capacity of a satellite system, and we may certainly expect a growing demand. Some experts believe that the growing demand for communications will force the world to use satellites within the next decade. Undoubtedly when they are fully developed they can be expected to carry several hundred simultaneous telephone conversations and to act as television relay stations. We are aiming at about 1,000 channels for an active satellite. There is no limit to the number of channels for a passive satellite. Clearly this is a sphere in which we must have a direct interest in view of the leading part which we in the Commonwealth have played for so many years.

It is a thrilling prospect, but we must bear in mind that the extent to which the new system will prove to be an economic proposition must depend, first, or the results of the tests which we hope will commence as soon as the technical developments permit, and, secondly, the availability of a launcher, about which I will say more in a moment. In the meantime, we will continue with the construction of the submarine cables to provide for the communication needs of the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh referred to a figure of between £80 and £100 million. The only part of that programme which is approved would cost between £35 and £40 million. The United Kingdom's share would be less. That relates to the cable between Canada and the United States in 1961 and between Canada and Australia in 1964. The communications authorities in the United States are also continuing with their cable plans, including a joint project for a further trans-Atlantic cable. The United States believes, as we do, that cable and satellite communication should co-exist for a substantial time. We may find that they are really complementary indefinitely. I cannot accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said about submarine cables necessarily being a waste of money.

As I said earlier, although the satellite communications programme must be found to be both feasible and economic, it cannot be implemented without a sufficiently powerful launcher. I now wish to say a word or two about Blue Streak and its potentialities, to which hon. Members have referred. When the Government decided not to proceed with the development of Blue Streak as a military weapon, we also decided to keep in being those aspects of the project which could be of use in developing a satellite launcher, while full consideration was given to the problems involved. This has permitted the preservation of scientific and technological skills and the retention of teams necessary to develop a satellite launcher. We have not run down the work below the level needed to maintain a satellite launcher programme.

Reference has been made to the delay. Should such a launcher be developed, the work that we have done and are doing will enable us to formulate a programme which will enable us or any other participating country to put satellites into orbit in the course of the next five or six years. There is no fear that the development of a launching vehicle such as we have in mind would be too late to produce valuable results.

Mr. Wyatt

The hon. Gentleman may be saying something very important. Is he saying that we are to go ahead with our own launcher and satellite and not depend on the Americans for their satellite and launcher?

Mr. Rippon

I said that we are in a position, if we choose, to develop our own launcher to carry out this work either ourselves or in collaboration with other countries. Perhaps I may refer to the question of collaboration. We have kept the work on Blue Streak going and we can develop it if we choose. In the meantime, we have reached the conclusion that if a heavy satellite launcher is to be developed outside the United States or Russia, there are substantial advantages for all concerned in doing it in co-operation with our friends in the Commonwealth and Europe. My right hon. Friend has had talks in Australia and Canada, and we are keeping in close touch with those countries and other members of the Commonwealth. I can assure the hon. Member for Workington that there is no question of the Commonwealth not being consulted and being brought into these matters. Australia, in particular, has been our partner throughout and has a direct interest. If we carry the Blue Streak proposals to completion, the facilities at Woomera would be used.

Mr. Peart

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there should be a British initiative and a British Commonwealth initiative as distinct from a link-up with Europe and the United States?

Mr. Rippon

There is no reason why there should not be both. We have taken an initiative both with the Commonwealth and with Europe. As I have said, my right hon. Friend has had discussions with Australia and Canada and other members of the Commonwealth. We have also had lengthy discussions with representatives of the French Government on the joint development of a satellite launcher based on Blue Streak These discussions have envisaged collaboration in both finance and technology.

I should like to say a brief word about some immediate matters. So far, the House will be pleased to know, our discussions with our French friends have gone well. We must, however, recognise that just as this is a major decision for us to take, so it is a major decision for any other country. On the technical side, we have established that it is practicable to develop a satellite launcher using a first propulsion stage formed from our own Blue Streak and a second propulsion stage based on French development work. On the policy side, we came to the view that the next step is to ascertain which other countries would wish to join in sponsoring the development of such a launcher and to undertake other parts of the development.

To that end, and following upon my right hon. Friend's recent visit to Paris, the House will be interested to know that we and the French Government have it in mind that interested countries should be invited to join in a conference early in the New Year. We hope that from such a conference will emerge a sufficient indication of the degree of interest in this project to enable us to take firm decisions. As a preliminary to this conference, we are inviting individual countries to send their experts here for discussion and to judge for themselves the technical soundness of our proposals and the distance we have already gone in development. I agree with the House that we have gone a considerable distance. I cannot say more at this stage as the matters which I have described were settled in Paris only last week and we are now working out the detailed steps which will lead up to the conference which I have announced.

Meanwhile, we are keeping the Blue Streak work going at what, we think, is the right level, striking a balance between the need to limit expenditure to the minimum in advance of policy decisions and the need to obtain a viable nucleus of the many skills which must be deployed in strength once the policy decision to go ahead is taken.

In deciding how much we can invest, either on our own or in collaboration with others, we must balance the potential benefits against what we can afford, not merely in money, but in the diversion of scientific and technical manpower from other desirable objects.

Mr. W. R. Williams (Manchester, Openshaw)

Are the Government setting any time limit to these negotiations? It seems to some of us that time is of the very essence of the matter. Whilst I am not opposed to negotiations with other nations, the time has come when there must be a limit to the time in which these negotiations take place and a decision is made as to what we will do.

Mr. Rippon

Obviously, time is a relevant factor. I have said that just as this is a major decision for us, so it is a major decision for the French and other Governments concerned, including the Commonwealth. I have also said enough, I believe, to show that there is no such delay as to prevent us from launching a programme within a reasonable time that will give worthwhile results if we so choose. In arriving at these decisions and in weighing these matters, the Government will undoubtedly have, and ought to have, regard to the vigorous and informed contributions which have been made from both sides of the House this afternoon.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly (Pembroke)

I rise briefly to say how disappointed I am with that answer. It was couched around with a number of qualifications which show the indecision of the Government, even at this late stage, about this important matter. When we raised the matter at the end of the Summer Session, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government would be in a position to give an answer shortly. When I asked him what "shortly" meant, he said "shortly". We are very much in the same position today.

It appears to me as though the Parliamentary Secretary today has been saying, in effect, that he would like to go ahead with this plan but that he cannot get sufficient support within the Government to take the final decision about it. This just is not good enough for the House. Unless we have a more satisfactory answer when we come back at the end of January, to borrow the language of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), we shall be applying pedo propulsion to the posteriors on the Treasury Bench.