§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
11.41 pm§ Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet)I am grateful for an opportunity to raise what I and many colleagues believe is a very important matter. The space industry has not often occupied parliamentary time, but for any nation that aspires to a modern base in research and technology it is an essential ingredient. Space provides the indispensable means of telecommunications on a worldwide scale. It offers unparalleled opportunities for earth and atmospheric observation and activity over a wide range of civil and defence applications. It is the breeding ground for the development of a huge spread of technologies ranging from materials to artificial intelligence, from propulsion systems to human life sciences. It is the best and, in some respects, the only way in which we can extend our knowledge of the universe and of our place in it. It is perhaps uniquely capable of firing the imagination and ambition of our best young people to embark upon a scientific or engineering career.
Last week during Trade and Industry Questions, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in response to my specific question, confirmed his acceptance of the importance of the space industry and the Government's willingness to spend substantial sums on it. He also reiterated the Government's commitment to obtaining value for money in public expenditure. That is certainly not controversial — at least as far as Conservative Members are concerned.
However, great controversy was aroused during the summer, leading to the resignation of the director-general of the British National Space Centre. My purpose in seeking this debate is to clarify the Government's policy towards the space industry in the run-up to the important European Space Agency council meeting and to demonstrate that there is strong feeling in all parts of the House that the important opportunities now open to the United Kingdom should not be lost to other countries.
It is, of course, well known that Governments of other countries currently spend rather more than us on their space Industries. In 1986, France spent $934 million, Japan $804 million, Germany $545 million, Italy $460 million, and even India spent $183 million. We spent $174 million. The USA spends as much as the rest put together, and the USSR spends considerably more than that.
I quote those figures not because size necessarily reflects the quality of the spending, but to underline certain important realities that we must recognise. First, space should be seen as a high priority, not only in developed but in developing countries. There is no obvious political or technological reason why we should be the odd man out. Secondly, the Governments of the countries mentioned are actively involved in what is an extremely regulated, highly complex, inter-active and essentially long-term industry. Thirdly, the European nations together can barely begin to compete with the USA or the USSR, and individually they have no chance.
For Britain, space poses the challenge that we must get our act together effectively both at home and in the wider, international context. At home, 18 different Government Departments, councils and research organisations are involved in space. We must add to that 67 universities, 1040 polytechnics and other institutes and more than 300 companies. If we are to get value for money in our spending we need the co-ordinating thrust of the British National Space Centre and the focus of an appropriate national space plan. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's commitment to the continuation and development of both.
As regards overseas involvement, I have had the opportunity, at first hand, to see many aspects of the ESA's work. In common with any international organisation, it could be improved. However, we must not ignore the great contribution that it has made to the development of the European space industry from an initial low base. We cannot afford to undermine its continued development. Without that agency we would be submerged under the weight of United States spending and technology. I hope that the Minister understands and appreciates that. Of course, that does not mean that we have to accept or participate in every optional programme that the ESA puts forward, or that the mandatory science programme should not be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as we would impose at home.
It must make sense for us to concentrate our financial, technological and scientific endeavour in those areas where we excel and to ensure that the ESA does not overreach itself with over-ambitious targets. We must also recognise that our partners have their own legitimate objectives. They would resent any suggestion that either we wanted to be free riders on the back of their investment or that, because we were not prepared to back their investment and commitment, we were prepared to inhibit their identification and achievement of realistic objectives involving a quantitative and qualitative leap forward.
I am not suggesting that the ESA programmes should be an alternative to national and bilateral activity both with our ESA partners and with others. These are and must remain complementary, and the priority and balance between them is a matter for judgment. I accept that that is easy to say, but difficult to translate into the building bricks of a national plan, and especially so in Britain when so many different Departments are involved.
However, we cannot afford to let something as important as the space industry to fall between the cracks of inter-Departmental funding, with each Department fighting its corner for its own research and development, but without objective and strategic comparisons as to quality, priority and merit.
In answer to parliamentary questions last week the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that he had now received the advice of the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology—ACOST—on R and I) priorities. When will that be published? Will my hon. Friend ensure that there will be opportunity for parliamentary debate, as it is a matter of great interest and importance.
Much of the controversy of recent months has been over the level of funding for space. I am not clear that there need be, in practical effect, a serious difference. Roy Gibson, the former director-general of the British National Space Centre, and others argue for a minimum Government spend of about £200 million to sustain a viable United Kingdom space industry. In that they appear to be supported by the industry, although it is divided to some extent as to how that funding should be allocated. The industry's fundamental point is that there 1041 is a minimum threshold of commitment below which we will not be able to realise the potential that we have already developed. It believes that our current commitment falls somewhere below that threshold.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appears to be arguing that the Government are already giving substantial support to space—this year £112 million—as well as to civilian R and D in a wider context and that the United Kingdom industry should do more. That is certainly true. My right hon. and learned Friend is seeking the re-evaluation of R and D priorities in general, and that is sensible. He is concerned about the strategic and financial thinking of the ESA and some of the proposals for its new programme, especially the development of the Hermes mini shuttle and the man-rating of Ariane 5. In that, he is not alone.
The two points of view are not necessarily incompatible. It would therefore be very helpful if my hon. Friend could clarify further the Department's current thinking. I appreciate the difficulties, in terms of timing, that that may impose, but it is important that the industry should have clear guidelines for the future.
To which areas of the United Kingdom space industry does my hon. Friend attach primary importance? Is he willing to support new bilateral space collaboration such as that under the agreement signed with the USSR during the Prime Minister's visit there in March, especially in areas in which the Soviets are showing interest in our expertise in, for example, space biomedicine?
Will my hon. Friend continue to support the HOTOL project, at least to final proof-of-concept stage? It could be the most significant development of all in the long term.
§ Mr. Timothy Wood (Stevenage)HOTOL seems to me to be one of those projects where it is clear that Britain could develop something worthwhile in conjunction with European partners. It would be tragic if lack of funding from Britain meant that such projects, which could be very beneficial, were set aside.
§ Mr. BatisteMy hon. Friend makes his point strongly and demonstrates the breadth of support for the space industry in the United Kingdom.
If a valid case is made out, and if the private sector is willing to contribute more, will my right hon. Friend the Minister support Government funding for the space industry beyond the current £112 million? Will his decisions be incorporated into a revised space plan that will help to provide much needed focus and direction for the industry? The answers to those questions will be awaited eagerly by all who believe that we cannot afford to opt out of the space industry and back away from the sharp edge of so many new technologies.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he wants the Department of Trade and Industry to be the Department of enterprise. He well knows that successful enterprise requires vision, consistency and application on the one hand and adequate working capital on the other. I and many others would like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister tonight whether the Department of Trade and Industry is willing to play its part in this process.
§ Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel)I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me to speak. I support everything that my hon. Friend has said. He is secretary of the all-party space committee and has put in tremendous efforts to encourage space research as, for example, at Sheffield. His words carry great weight and I support them.
I have two questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, does he recognise the need to allay disquiet at the apparent inflexibility in the Government's stance on space, as I believe the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has done in an article in The Times today? Secondly, will he argue that the inflexibility is more apparent than real? Will he, for example, confirm that, whatever the reservations about the European Space Agency's current thinking—I share reservations about the somewhat unrealistic budgeting and its seeming inability to come to terms with what many of us feel is the way ahead, namely, bringing industry and ESA funding together—the Government will consider pledging financial support for proposals which are essentially long term? We must resolve the problem of industry's short-term need for a return and the long-term support necessary for programmes such as Columbus, HOTOL and remote sensing.
A commitment in principle to support such programmes will not lock the Government in, and anything that the Minister can say about it will be helpful. I am sure that he, like all hon. Members who study these matters, knows that there is no alternative to Government commitment combined with the work of industry to take research and development into the commercial phase. We earnestly hope that the Government will reaffirm their commitment to that tonight.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) for raising the subject and for speaking with a great deal of conviction and from an informed base. I pay tribute to his work on the all-party space committee. On a local basis—indeed, on an almost constituency basis—he has been involved in the movements at Sheffield university to bring together various disciplines to provide expertise in space technologies in which, in partnership with our friends on the other side of Eastern Europe he has a great deal of interest.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) who, as ever, spoke up not just for his constituents' interests but for his personal conviction that Britain should seriously think about the early appraisals now being made regarding HOTOL. That point has been echoed by hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall).
The question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel is timely, almost to an excruciating extent. He is asking me to provide some of the finer details of the matters that our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will need to deploy when he goes to the Hague on 9 and 10 November. To begin to answer his question on how flexible we shall be would do my right hon. and learned Friend a disservice. I agree with my hon. Friend on whether one can apply 1043 short-term considerations to space. We wish to see a much greater reference to commercial considerations. We believe that many of them have been lost in the political movement for a bigger space programme within Europe. But we have never pretended—I said this to the space community at Brighton two or three weeks ago—that one can judge such programmes on a traditional three-month profit and loss account basis. It is precisely because we have appreciated that fact that public money has been put forward on the programme. Many long-term benefits are to be obtained.
This is a particularly interesting time for us to discuss space as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be attending a crucial European Space Agency meeting on Monday and Tuesday of next week. I therefore welcome the opportunity to make a statement about Government policy on space.
Space is an important industry. It is a central technology driver, demanding exceptional standards of quality control, improved production processes and expert project management. There is considerable cross-fertilisation between it and other advanced sectors, for example, robotics, avionics and power generation. Commercially, the rewards from space could be great. A promising start has been made in the communications sector, about which I shall say more in a few moments. There is also commercial potential in other respects such as earth observation, but exploitation will involve high risks and will be over a long timescale. There are many other sectors in which space has, or will have, an impact, including defence, education, and science.
Although space activities are important, they are also, as my hon. Friend recognised, expensive. Therefore, we have to tailor our investment to reasonable objectives within the reach of our available resources. Against that background, the main thrust of our public expenditure for the past decade has been towards collaborative developments in the European Space Agency, supplemented by a complementary national programme and a number of bilateral initiatives.
To date, this policy has worked well. Our participation in ESA has led to our communications satellite industry being one of the world's leaders. My hon. Friend rightly homed in on that point. British companies have led the consortia which have built ESA's communications satellites, and have gone on to win contracts for various operational satellites. The Ministry of Defence has ordered three Skynet IV communications satellites from a consortium of British Aerospace and Marconi. The consortium has also won a NATO contract for two such satellites, thus breaking the American monopoly in NATO satellites which has existed since the early 1970s. British Aerospace is leading the industrial team for the second generation of satellites for Inmarsat, and major subsystems are being supplied from Britain for the new Intelsat and Eutelsat satellites.
I should point out that, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the United Kingdom is also a major user of communications satellites. We are among the top three investors in each of the major international organisations in that area — Intelsat, Eutelsat and Inmarsat, which together provide the means of linking the world's 500 million-odd telephones, and which bring television to a world audience of half a billion. The scientists tell me that 1044 it is probably the largest man-made machine ever constructed. British Telecom is the largest user of satellite capacity in Europe.
Another excellent example of the United Kingdom's participation in ESA is the Giotto satellite's encounter with Halley's comet last year. British Aerospace was the lead contractor for the construction of the satellite for the ESA mission, and British scientists were responsible for two of the 10 experiments on board.
The national programme has concentrated on developing the technology for commercial applications. That has, for example, led to Pilkingtons becoming the world's largest supplier of the glass used in satellite solar cells.
We are involved in a number of bilateral programmes, mainly in space science. We have arrangements with several countries to provide a framework for those collaborations, including agreements with China, India, and the one that my hon. Friend mentioned with the Soviet Union. Under this last agreement, we are already supporting British participation in the planning stages of a Russian mission to Phobos, one of the moons of Mars and a proposed Russian X-ray space telescope.
When we set up the British national space centre in 1985, its immediate tasks were to maximise the benefits to the United Kingdom from existing activities and to develop a space plan that would take into account the needs of the various users of space. The advice that we received made clear the substantial cost of maintaining our share in ESA's ambitious and expensive proposals. The fact that ESA is poised to embark on an extensive new long-term plan has caused us to take a more rigorous look at the cost-effectiveness of our policy.
In considering the proposed increase, we of course had to view the costs against the potential benefits of alternative uses of the funds in support of other areas of United Kingdom industry. We already spend some £4.5 billion each year on research and development, and we are not able to find more resources. In a statement to the House on 23 July in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government had decided against switching funds to space. She also suggested that if the private sector was interested in space research, it should come forward with further resources.
Industry's initial response has been positive and discussions have begun between my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the space companies and the British National Space Centre. The purpose of those discussions is to establish what the United Kingdom wants to get out of involvement in space, and how that can best be achieved through a much closer involvement of the private sector. The outcome of those discussions will clearly influence our views on many of the questions that my hon. Friend has raised, for example, on the targeting of space funding and the future structure and organisation of the BNSC.
I am sorry to say that over the last 12 months the ESA proposals have become even more expensive as it has recast the cost estimates of its ambitious schemes. The cost of Hermes, for example, has doubled. The overall proposals that the director-general of ESA will be putting to Ministers in the Hague next week would involve an increase in expenditure by a factor of two and a half over the next five years. My right hon. and learned Friend the 1045 Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will represent the United Kingdom at that meeting and will seek to introduce some realism into the debate.
Britain is one of the founder members of ESA and our membership to date has been very worth while. We are anxious to play a constructive part in developing it sensibly, but I do not think that even the most enthusiastic supporter of space expenditure, including my hon. Friend, would believe that we should pursue space programmes regardless of cost. I am afraid that we do not consider the balance, scale and implementation of the present proposals to be sensible. We also doubt whether it would be possible for European industry, from its present capacity level, to take on such a massive increase of work over the next five years without incurring serious risks of wasteful or even dangerous error. Given the continuing uncertainty on some of the programmes, we do not see the justification for decisions on all of them on 9 and 10 November. It is essential that we take stock and ensure that we are all clear about objectives, priorities and methods of operation.
We are looking for sound investments, some of which will of course be long-term, which are likely to benefit us in some way — industrially, technologically, commercially, scientifically or whatever. We see no justification for entering what some supporters have called a space race and giving ourselves technical objectives heavily influenced by political motives such as being able to put a man in space by the end of the century. This would be a return to the era of the race to the moon, which was a spectacular illustration of man's ingenuity, but which cost vast amounts of money without commensurate commercial or economic return.
In The Hague, we shall therefore be asking what is the purpose of the Hermes proposal. What is man going to do when he gets into space? Is it cost-effective? Is there a follow through into the next century? Or is it likely that the next generation of safer launchers, which could possibly be HOTOL, will mean that the Hermes development is a blind alley? Above all, what will be the cost? I have already indicated our concern about Hermes, the estimated cost of which has doubled in the past 12 months, and there is good reason to believe that the present figure of over £3 billion is still too low.
As I have said, before ESA makes a decision on the proposed increase in the scale of its activities, it is essential that we should be clear what the objectives are. For some countries in Europe, the motivation is, I am afraid, political. They appear to believe that Europe should seek to keep up with the American and Russian space programmes, for the greater glory of Europe and for their own national prestige. It is this approach which has led to demands that Europe's top priority should be to develop an independent capability to put man in space by the year 2000.
There is also the objective of advancing pure science; there are areas of science which can only be advanced by observations from space, or experiments carried out in space. But space science is very expensive. The money for a single space experiment could fund many teams of experimenters on the ground. We must decide how large a share of all our science budgets we are willing to put into ESA's science programme.
1046 There are also potential economic benefits from space research and development. These are of two types. First, there are the technological advances which are achieved in other areas, for example in materials research and software development. Though such spin-offs would not in themselves justify a space programme, it is important that we consider them in structuring our programmes and in encouraging industry to exploit them.
Secondly, and more important, there can be direct economic benefit in terms of programmes providing real commercial returns on the capital investment. These may be profits for the aerospace companies producing the hardware, or more likely for the providers of new or improved services. Telecommunications satellites have already reached this stage, and it is possible that satellites which observe the earth from space will provide the next example.
The Government's view is that greater priority should be placed on the commercial, industrial and ecomomic benefits, but our main concern is that the European countries should debate these priorities. It is only by agreeing what we want to achieve that we will be able to develop a coherent long-term plan and establish an appropriate level of funding.
Unfortunately, the European Space Agency has not so far helped Governments to agree on priorities. The present long-term plan seems to be little more than an accumulation of the various aspirations held by different European interests, resulting in a strategy designed to pursue every objective regardless of cost.
ESA is presently run as a pure research and development organisation — one where almost all projects are wholly Government funded. It has seen its role in technology as enabling the development of capabilities which member states can then exploit nationally in separate programmes. The result has been that it is largely divorced from the market place and there is little, if any, commercial or industrial input to its decision-making process.
Three main projects are being worked on by the ESA officials. The first is Ariane 5 — a new heavy lift launcher—part of the justification for which is to be able to launch the second project, Hermes. This is the proposed spaceplane which would enable Europe to launch its own astronauts. The third is Columbus, the proposed European contribution to the United States-led international space station. The United Kingdom is interested in the Columbus programme, but negotiations with the Americans are still continuing and it is not even firmly established what the European elements will be. It therefore seems premature for ESA to be pressing us to commit to a 10-year development programme which will cost at least £2.5 billion.
Last year, ESA spent about 1 billion ecu — about £700 million. Its proposals would increase this to more than 2.5 billion ecu, or more than £1.75 billion, by 1992. If this were agreed, maintaining our position in ESA could mean tripling our contribution in cash terms over just five years. We currently contribute about £80 million a year to ESA, and spend about a further £30 million domestically. That is not insignificant. If we went along with the ESA proposals and backed this with corresponding increases in national support, it would require an extra £200 million a year from the United Kingdom taxpayer.
An emphasis on commercial exploitation does not mean a negative approach to projects. For example, the 1047 main restraint on commercial use of space at present is the extremely high cost of putting satellites into orbit with conventional launchers. There is, therefore, a need for a new generation of launchers which can make space more affordable. One of the most promising ideas in this area is HOTOL, a revolutionary——
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.