---

UK Space Policy

I, too, am a member of the all-party space group. Why I should want to become a member was a source of perplexity to some of my parliamentary colleagues. To many people, space technology means either space exploration or boys' toys—the ““Star Trek”” or ““Star Wars”” syndrome. Whether one has aspirations to be Captain Kirk or Luke Skywalker, there is another important aspect of space, which is the eco-warrior role. The role of the space industry in monitoring, tracking and ultimately helping to reverse—or at the very least better manage—climate change is crucial. A few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to be invited to the European Space Research Institute at Frascati in Italy to watch a video link to the launch of the Cryosat satellite. All seemed to be going well, but unfortunately after what we thought was a successful launch, the satellite ended up plummeting into the Arctic ocean. It was a bitter blow for the British man, Dr. Duncan Wingham, whose brainchild the satellite was. It was going to survey from space the thinning of the Earth's icecaps and provide the clearest picture yet of what climate change is doing to our planet. We monitor from the ground, but that is not good enough. The information that we could have got from the satellite would have been crucial. The aborted launch brought home the fact that space is still an inexact science. As my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) remarked, we do not yet have all the answers. However, we have a wealth of opportunity. The satellite was launched on top of an old Soviet SS-19 ballistic missile. I could not think of a better example of the swords-into-ploughshares argument: a rocket designed to destroy parts of the Earth being used to launch a satellite that was going to help save it. Climate change is probably the most important global issue, and I want to make sure that we do not lose the opportunity to gather important data. The data that that satellite was seeking are essential to our understanding of climate change, would have given scientists a definitive picture of the rate of thinning of the Arctic sea ice and would have enabled them to improve computer models of climate change. Will Europe approve a replacement satellite? That is one of many issues that will be debated at the European Space Agency ministerial meeting. Cryosat cost £90 million, which is not insubstantial. However, the project director said:"““You have to see the replacement cost in context, there is a cost in not knowing what is going on and in the end that's an even larger cost.””" If a decision is made quickly, much of the original team will still be in place, so we will not need to reinvent the wheel. The original satellite took seven years to build, and it is estimated that if we move quickly, a replacement could be built in three. That is better than seven years, but it will be three years in which the icecap thins still further and scientists do not have the information they need. That is just one example of the importance of the space industry, not only to the United Kingdom, but much further afield. We have reached the point where we must ask whether we want the UK to be a major player in the space industry. Last month, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, the Minister for Science and Innovation, said that UK Space's importance as a contributory factor in achieving our goal to be Europe's leading knowledge-based economy is without question. However, we are at a crossroads. Without continuing investment, we will not be able to play that role. Space is one of the few industries in which Britain retains a comprehensive design and integration ability and it employs the most highly skilled work force in British manufacturing. Ironically, it was a British man, Arthur C. Clarke, who found fame and fortune from space—not from designing or manufacturing space hardware, but by writing about it. He was my literary hero during my teenage years. I found his books fascinating, because although they were fiction, they were rooted in real scientific ideas. He was a man way ahead of his time. He predicted communication satellites way back in 1945 and inspired generations of young people to dream about space. In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States Apollo missions inspired a generation of Americans to go into science, engineering and technology. A MORI poll last year found that 70 per cent. of young people would be encouraged to go into science, engineering and technology because of UK involvement in space, but we need to have a space industry for them to use their skills in. When I watched the doomed Cryosat launch last month, I found it fascinating that the technology for putting satellites into space was still basically a giant firework. Once again, we can turn to Arthur C. Clarke for inspiration. His view is that the rocket has as much future in space as dog sleds have in serious Antarctic exploration, but at present it is all we have. However, he came up with the vision for communication satellites remaining poised over a fixed spot on the equator by matching their speed to the turning Earth. He progressed that idea in his book ““The Fountains of Paradise””: by adding a cable linking the satellite to the ground, payloads could be hoisted mechanically and reach their orbit without the need for expensive rocket power. He called that a space elevator and although at first it was just a fanciful idea, since the discovery of material with which it could be built—the third form of carbon, C60—it has become a real possibility. It would have the effect of massively reducing the cost of putting payloads into space. We should imagine what the growth effect of that would be on the UK satellite industry and what it would mean for the UK economy. In my constituency, I have seen the effects of job losses across industry and, in particular, jobs going to the low-cost eastern Europe and Pacific rim countries. However, we should examine which jobs are being outsourced; by and large, they are at the low-skill and low-tech end of the market. The key to retaining jobs in the UK is to maximise the number of high-skill, high-tech jobs, and that is exactly what jobs in the space industry are. EADS Astrium, which is one of the UK's leading space companies, employs around 1,000 people in my constituency. They have highly skilled jobs, which is precisely what my constituency needs in order to be a driving force in the knowledge-based economy. We need many more knowledge-based, high-tech, science-based industries and I want my constituents to be able to obtain the skills they will need to work in those industries. There is so much good work going on in my constituency to encourage young people into those career paths. EADS Astrium has sponsored the local girls' school to become a specialist school in science and maths. The support and help of such a leading player in the space industry helps to inspire schoolchildren to take a positive look at science, engineering and technology opportunities. School standards in my constituency are still below the national average, despite huge improvements since 1997. I welcome the involvement of such a major high-tech company in helping my young constituents to reach their potential and to have an ambition beyond working in McDonalds—not that there anything wrong with working in McDonalds, but it should not be the only choice. The head teacher is very enthusiastic about the project and has said that attaining specialist status in science will give the girls in her school a unique opportunity to acquire the technical, and ultimately transferable, skills that they need to thrive in the 21st century. However, what is the use of their gaining those skills if we cut the legs from under the UK space industry through short-sighted cutting of funding? The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) has left, but referred to the European global monitoring for environment and security programme and said that the UK should contribute around £11 million a year to maintain our position in the driving seat of that programme. If it is true that we will contribute only £3 million, it sends the message to our European partners that the UK does not want to be a leading player in the co-ordinated European effort on environmental monitoring, including disaster management and monitoring climate change. The UK holds the EU presidency and recently held the chairmanship of G8. Our Prime Minister has said that tackling climate change is a key part of those roles, but we cannot do it alone. We must bring other countries on board, but if we cut back our contribution, what message will that send out?