§ 2.49 p.m.
§ Lord Tanlawasked Her Majesty's Government: What will be the consequences for space science education and space-related industries if the subscription to the European Space Agency's Aurora/Inspiration programme is not funded in full by June 2005.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)My Lords, the European Space Agency's Inspirations/Aurora programme is still being defined. There is a great deal of pressure on space budgets across Europe. Work has already taken place to turn ESA's aspirations into a realistic programme based on robotic exploration. Such a programme is more likely to be affordable. If not, timescales will be lengthened with inevitable consequences for space science education and space-related industries.
§ Lord TanlawMy Lords, while giving the customary thanks to the Minister for his reply, which I take to be a "no", I wonder whether there will be thanks from 256 the teachers of planetary sciences or from space industrialists when they learn that we shall appear to have no part in the inspirational project Aurora, which is the search for life elsewhere in the solar system and beyond.
The Minister's reply was convoluted and does not give us the reassurance required. As I understand it, funds have to be put aside in this current review in order to pay the full subscription in June 2005. We have been confined to 20 years of being terrestrial spectators in a game that will be played on another planet with equipment supplied by our competitors in Europe. Before the Minister leaves the political arena for the joust of the retail trade, I wonder whether a legacy could be left by applying to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-establish funds for this subscription.
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, perhaps I have been too long away from the retail trade. I thought my answer was a "yes" and not a "no". Clearly, political life is beginning to affect the clarity of my replies.
The Aurora programme will be funded in two ways; partly by the mandatory programme, to which we give a percentage of GDP, and partly through optional payments, which we will also make. We are looking at the contribution we will make. That will depend of course on how the programme turns out. We are very keen that it should focus on robotic exploration and not manned exploration and are extremely keen to take part in the programme.
§ Baroness Harris of RichmondMy Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has said, is the follow-up to Beagle 2 at risk if we do not participate in the Aurora programme?
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, we want the Aurora programme to focus more clearly on robotic exploration and to build on both the science and the instrumentation work done for Beagle 2. That is why we are keen to ensure it heads in that direction.
§ Lord TanlawMy Lords, perhaps the Minister will clarify one further point. The Aurora programme is in two parts—part robotic and part involving astronauts. How can young people be enthusiastic about robotic exploration in the next 20 years when they see that there will be Italian, German or French astronauts' boots on the Moon or on another planet?
§ Lord Sainsbury of TurvilleMy Lords, as Beagle 2 demonstrated very clearly, it is possible for people to be enthused by planetary exploration when it is robotic, not manned, exploration. That came through clearly. The really exciting part is the planetary exploration which is taking place. People, including many young people, are beginning to realise that manned space exploration is probably not the way forward at this stage.