House of Commons - Trade and Industry

Select Committee on Trade and Industry Tenth Report

VII. THE FUTURE OF UK SPACE POLICY

77. There is little doubt that the creation of BNSC in 1985 represented a marked improvement on the previous ramshackle arrangements whereby each interested Government department worked largely autonomously. BNSC is generally viewed as successful in presenting UK policy in Europe and in ESA and in ensuring that the UK's voice is heard. PPARC told us that the greatest added value of the BNSC partnership is the co-ordination of the UK's participation in ESA.[235] UKISC felt that "BNSC is a rare and welcome example of an organisation set up for cross-departmental co-operation".[236] Professor Culhane told us that "since the establishment of BNSC, interaction with relevant space and other industries has become rather better".[237]

78. Nonetheless, there has for many years been concern over the status and structure of BNSC. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee said in 1988 that "BNSC cannot be left exactly as it is". That Committee's preference was for a free-standing agency with its own Vote.[238] The Government's response was to leave the BNSC unchanged with the proviso that the arrangements would be kept under review.[239] We are unaware of any substantial public review having taken place. Evidence we received highlights continuing disquiet over the structure of BNSC. The British Interplanetary Society (BIS) had great concerns over the organisation of space activity in the UK: "whether the fundamental problems with British space are a result of this organisation, or this organisation is a consequence of the problems that Britain has, is a moot point".[240] They went on to say, however, that "there is much of the UK situation that works as well if not better than other nations".[241] The RAS stated that "while the present system has been successful, it might nonetheless be worth while looking at alternative models in which the lines of communication and responsibility are more clear".[242]

79. Dr Haynes of UKISC told us "I certainly believe that BNSC should perhaps have more teeth".[243] ASTOS found the BNSC to be "responsive, helpful and supportive in the Association's work".[244] However, in oral evidence they went on to say that there are some areas where greater recognition of the particular factors that affect SMEs would be helpful.[245] PPARC thought that "BNSC co-ordinates the interests of individual partners well, but the loose partnership structure makes it less easy to bring about close synergy between partners".[246] The Minister conceded that "I am not certain we have got it totally right on BNSC" but felt that BNSC is probably a better arrangement than other European countries which have space agencies.[247] Taking the French space agency CNES as an example, Lord Sainsbury went on to say "I think there is a considerable confusion of roles between the role of setting policy, delivering policy and also, at the same time, being the customer".[248]

80. A lack of co-ordination between Government Departments on space policy was a recurring theme in our evidence. We have already quoted the Galileo example. UKISC thought that "HMG should improve co-ordination of its space requirement across departmental boundaries bringing industry closer to policy-making and management".[249] Dr Haynes told us that UKISC have "found it difficult to get various Government departments to look at the potential use of space", and on trying to get, for example, MAFF involved, they found " a resistance to listen and we certainly find there is quite a lot of resistance to talk to other Government departments".[250] The Institute of Professionals, Managers and Specialists believe that the partnership arrangements in BNSC are working well. However, they also feel that, as each of the organisations involved in BNSC have their own corporate objectives, there was some concern that inconsistent corporate objectives or those that are not clearly focussed on the national space strategy may lead to dissipation of overall research effort.[251] BIS expressed concern that the structure of BNSC means that there is almost an exclusive emphasis on the applications created by the partners in BNSC.[252] BNSC's main role is one of co-ordination. If BNSC is to continue in anything like its present form, it must be encouraged to take a more proactive stance and to provide firm and clear leadership in co-ordinating policy across Government departments.

81. BNSC is also hampered by the fact that it has no budget of its own but merely those of its constituent partners. Whilst BNSC has no doubt played a valuable role in co-ordinating the activities of those bodies with an interest in space, its hands have been tied without its own funds. If BNSC were awarded its own funds, it would be in a position to see the wider picture and identify areas of broad public interest, beyond the sectoral interests of its partner organisations. BNSC was set up as an ad hoc arrangement in 1985. It is now time to review the role, status, and organisation of BNSC. We recommend that following the completion of the DTI's evaluation of spending on space, the Government undertake a public review of BNSC along the lines of the quinquennial reviews of Government bodies. This review should also consider the possibility of giving BNSC or its successor body its own budget, in addition to the existing budgets of BNSC's partners, in order to ensure that the UK space programme reflects the long term public policy interests of the UK. We also recommend that the next Director-General of the BNSC or its successor body is recruited on a fixed term contract through open competition.

Conclusion

82. Space technology is used in many different ways to meet a number of highly significant objectives including Earth observation, critical global navigation, and telecommunications and multi-media. We have already commented on our disappointment at the apparent failure of UK space policy in Earth observation. However, it is important that we do not limit our perspective of space to current uses: there are a number of potential areas for exploration or resources from space, including the delivery of microwave energy. UK space strategy must be sufficiently flexible to be able to react to potential future applications of space technology.

83. The recent record of UK space policy is mixed. After a period in which expenditure and political commitment was high, the UK stood aside from space for too many years. In the mid-1980s there was a brief prospect of a more solid commitment, only to be followed by another period of barely level funding and absence of any enthusiasm or vision. In recent years there have been welcome signs of renewed political interest, yet to be matched by funds or by a clear vision of policy priorities. The latest space strategy document is admirable in many respects but limited in ambition. We hope that its successor will be able to announce something beyond a modest continuation of existing programmes, and that the civil space programme will be funded on a less cautious basis.

235 Ev, p46, para 23 Back

236 Ev, p164 Back

237 Q161 Back

238 HL Paper 41-I, p47, para 5.29-31 Back

239 HL Paper 105, p4, para 12 Back

240 Ev, p112, para 4.1.2 Back

241 Ev, p115, para 5.4 Back

242 Ev, p52 Back

243 Q6 Back