Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660
- 679)
WEDNESDAY 18 APRIL 2007
MALCOLM WICKS
MP, AND DR
DAVID WILLIAMS
Q660 Dr Spink: We are spending about
five million a year on Ariane, of course, the ESA launcher. Given
that there is this market opportunity now, and given that there
are some skills in this country and technological expertise, why
is the Government not prepared to put some seed corn funding into
launcher development in this country?
Malcolm Wicks: Again, if one says
no at the moment I do not think that is no forever. As I say,
the judgment we have had is that the development of our satellites
has not been inhibited greatly by a lack of launchers. We have
just heard that there is now something of a queue. If the situation
changed then there may be a public policy case, there might be
a commercial argument, for developing launcher facilities but
we do not see that as priority at the moment. I do not think,
to be blunt, we can do everything in space here, alone in the
United Kingdom; we do a number of things very, very well. I think
the advice I am receiving at the moment is that it would not be
sensible for us to invest in a launcher capability.
Q661 Dr Spink: Do you accept, Minister,
that things are changing and demand for small launchers may increase,
particularly given the development of space tourism, which is
possible? We are thinking of Virgin Galactic, for instance.
Malcolm Wicks: The little I understand
about that project suggests that they might be using, I think,
the United States to help facilitate that interesting project.
Presumably, the other way of looking at this is that as a number
of countries get involved in space the market will grow in terms
of launchers. We will keep this under review but, again, I repeat,
we do not see this as a priority at the moment.
Q662 Dr Spink: Do you think that
space tourism might have a part to play in generating public excitement
and interest in space and, therefore, getting kids into physics,
or do you think it is fairly irrelevant?
Malcolm Wicks: I suppose it would
generate interest, and I think our role, in terms of BNSC and
as Government, is not to encourage or discourage, it is to help
facilitate in terms of advice and the regulatory framework. I
am bound to say, Chairman, I think the environmental impact in
terms of carbon emissions might be something that should be looked
at most carefully in judging whether this is a societal priority.
Q663 Dr Spink: We took evidence from
them on that actually, and that will be in our report, I am sure.
There is a potential opportunity in space tourism. In order for
this country to take advantage of that opportunity we need to
change regulations and we need to develop regulations. Who do
you think would be the best body to lead in developing new regulations
so that Virgin Galactic can move their project forward, if you
think that is worth doing?
Malcolm Wicks: That would be a
matter for the DTI taking the lead working with the BNSC and,
no doubt, other regulatory authorities in terms of, I guess, passenger
safety and the rest. Mr Chairman, I am bound to say that of all
the exciting things we should be doing in space, in terms of pushing
back the boundaries of knowledge, in terms of space exploration,
in terms of using satellite technologies for environmental and
social and economic benefits, of all the things I am excited about
space tourism is not at the top of my list.
Q664 Dr Spink: You have not booked
your ticket yet?
Malcolm Wicks: No.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
I am sure that your comments will echo a lot of the comments on
this Committee too. Can I move on to Adam Afriyie?
Q665 Adam Afriyie: The UK Government's
investment in space is about £200 million, which equates
to approximately 0.02% of our Gross National Income. This is about
half the EU average investment in space. You indicated earlier
that you are pleased with the return on investment we achieve
in space, so my question is why is the UK Government's expenditure,
relatively speaking, so low?
Malcolm Wicks: Because we are
sensible, we are careful, we scrutinise things properly—
Q666 Adam Afriyie: Even if you have
a great return on investment—you do not want more of it?
Malcolm Wicks: We back projects
that we think are important, both in terms of basic research and
what you might call applied research, and user application. I
am not going to sit here and say £207.61 million is absolutely
the right figure (there is a spending round coming up—I
will not say any more about that) but there should be appropriate
investment. I have indicated, and the Committee has indicated,
this is a very important and developing area of, if I can quote,
public policy and there may well need to be more investment in
the future. I am sure there will be, both from the public and
the private sectors, but at the moment I feel pleased with the
amount of money that we are investing, and pleased about the way
in which we are investing it. It does not mean that every penny
is well-spent—there will be problems at a European level—but
I think our approach has been proportionate, careful and, I think,
significant.
Q667 Adam Afriyie: I was chatting
with my wife this morning and, Minister, we both agreed that you
seem to be an amiable fellow and that you listen to people. UK
Space, among others, has told us that "GMES remains 75% under-funded
by the United Kingdom". I wonder, have you listened to what
the industry have been saying? Do you accept their view and, if
so, what plans do you have to increase the expenditure in that
specific area?
Malcolm Wicks: On GMES?
Q668 Adam Afriyie: Yes.
Malcolm Wicks: Please give your
wife my very best wishes, and compliment her on her judgment.
Let me ask David to talk about GMES.
Dr Williams: We have gone round
this buoy several times. The issue there is that it is under-subscribed
in the development phase, and the reason why the UK has not gone
into the higher level is because at the moment the programme is
not deemed to meet the policy requirements of government. The
GMES is aimed at public good not at commercial priority; it is
aimed at the public good of environmental policy, of disaster
management and security. In that context, it is not seen to be
delivering what policy departments want to do their work. The
main department we are engaged with is Defra; they are interested
in climate change, they are interested in long-term observations.
While we negotiate that with the ESA programme developers and
we negotiate with the user agencies or departments on funding,
we have a mismatch and that may continue because we are selective
and it would be wrong to put money into a programme that will
not deliver at day one what we perceive is necessary to meet the
policy objectives.
Q669 Adam Afriyie: So when it comes
to GMES then the Minister, or the department, will not necessarily
be listening to what the industry wants?
Dr Williams: It is listening but
the industry is the juste retour industry: "Please
put money into ESA because we get work out". The rationale
for putting the money in is partly that—and we have had
this debate already today—but mainly because it is going
to allow us to have informed policy making on the environment.
We have got to get that bit right as well.
Q670 Chairman: Can I just follow
this up with you: one of the main concerns that have been brought
to us is that at 2000-01 £18.2 million was being spent by
the DTI on space. In 2005-06 it had gone down to £4.9 million.
We were actually talking, also, in terms of the underpayment on
GMES, yet number two in terms of your space strategy is, in fact,
and I quote it here: "To create opportunities for commercial
exploitation of satellite systems". The simple truth, Minister,
is that if we are not actually putting in additional resources
we have not a cat-in-hell's chance of getting the industrial return
which is so absolutely crucial. We cannot get the ESA contracts
if we are not going into the optional programmes. We have to go
into the basic programme according to our GDP, so we are actually
committed to that anyhow, but in terms of actually bidding into
the optional programmes and in terms of bidding into programmes
with the India space industry and the Chinese space industry,
we are out of the game unless we invest more. We seem to say:
"This is a superb industry" and yet we are cutting back
on investment. Surely that does not stack up, Minister.
Malcolm Wicks: We need to make
sure we are talking about the same arithmetic on this. I may have
misheard you, Mr Chairman, at the beginning, but we have already
talked about how—
Q671 Chairman: You are putting money
in through ESA, I accept that, which is in two lumps; one goes
in through the basic programme and one goes in through the optional
programme, and the DTI as well has its own budget which it has
cut year-on-year in terms of expenditure on space. Does that not
send out all the wrong signals?
Malcolm Wicks: As I say, there
is a spending review coming up so I do not want to prejudge any—
Q672 Chairman: We have had the spending
review.
Malcolm Wicks: No, the Comprehensive
Spending Review.
Q673 Chairman: You know what the
answers are.
Malcolm Wicks: The Comprehensive
Spending Review is still ongoing. I hear the figures you are saying
and I am not saying they are wrong but I do ask you to look at
the over £200 million that Government, one way or another,
is spending on space. It is quite a considerable total.
Q674 Chairman: Minister, if we have
got 7% of the global market in terms of space, that is a huge
slice of any global market.
Malcolm Wicks: Yes.
Q675 Chairman: The point I am making
to you, which is the point that the industry has made to us, is
that unless we are prepared to continue to invest and increase
that investment then we are not going to have the increased share
of a global market that is going to escalate—which you have
already said will escalate—over the next 10 years. What
this Committee would like, I think, is to hear from you has the
Government got a commitment to additional expenditure in space
or is it just simply "Steady as you go; we'll keep things
as they are?"
Malcolm Wicks: I cannot talk about
the future because the Comprehensive Spending Review—
Q676 Chairman: What is your view,
though, Minister?
Malcolm Wicks: My view is that
in 2001-02 the Government was spending £169 million on space
and the latest figures for 2005-06 are that it has gone up from
£169 to £207 million.
Q677 Chairman: What is that in real
terms? Is that in real terms?
Malcolm Wicks: It may not be.
Let me give you those figures later; let us make sure we have
got the same arithmetic on this.
Q678 Chairman: But the point I am
making is one you will take on board and, perhaps, give us a response
to.
Malcolm Wicks: I must not ask
questions, but there is a suggestion here of some gloom. One can
turn the thing around, surely. You could say that if we are doing
so badly, as maybe is being suggested—
Q679 Chairman: Not at all.
Malcolm Wicks: If we are doing
so badly, why are we doing so well? We are doing well in terms
of the number of companies—small, medium-sized and larger
companies—we are doing well in terms of employment, we are
doing very well if it is 7 or 10% of the global space market.
If we are doing that well it might actually suggest the Government
could even be in the right place on this one in terms of how it
spends its money. Do we need more investment in the future? Yes,
of course we do, public and private, and we will try to achieve
that.
| 
