---

UK Space Policy

: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to make a number of other comments in response to the debate. However, I shall draw those matters to the attention of the relevant Defence and Foreign Ministers. I shall speak next about our national priorities. The UK space strategy for 2003–06 sets out three objectives for the use of space, all of which require a dynamic and innovative space sector in order to succeed. I believe that those objectives remain a sound basis for the next UK space strategy. The first objective is to maintain high-quality science—another theme of this brief debate. We have all seen the value of collaboration through ESA in the recent exciting results from Cassini-Huygens. The first pictures from the surface of Titan were astonishing. Another recently launched mission with major UK involvement is Venus Express, which plays well with our interests in climate change. Science is also about advancing our understanding of our environment. Much has been achieved in developing stronger capabilities in services aimed at prevention, forecasting and assessment of damage from disasters. The second objective is to stimulate commercial use of space and to develop not only the important upstream areas of space but to identify areas where carefully focused investment will lead to significant downstream economic benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) has spoken to me about the importance of that to her constituency. The telecommunication and broadcasting sector makes up 80 per cent. of all UK space industry turnover. There is now a large commercial space industry, worth more than $100 billion globally and estimated to be growing at 9 per cent. a year. We must, of course, be part of it. The Government seek to support the development of technology for the space industry. However, we should not forget that the overall UK budget for space has risen from £160 million in 2002–03 to almost £200 million in 2004–05. I am sure that others will consider the words of colleagues: in an ideal world we would be spending more. That has been a strong theme of the debate, but the Government are proud of our record, not least in relation to the overall science budget. When making international comparisons, we should recognise that, in my judgment, the return on our investment exceeds—I shall be tactful—that of many of our counterparts. The third objective is to seek to identify and support projects that most benefit the lives of citizens in the UK and the wider world. Galileo has been mentioned. The UK is committed to that important programme. It is a key part of the infrastructure that is necessary for a digital world. The UK has made a strong technical contribution, but there is still much to decide both now and in the longer term. To respond to a point raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), I am advised that the UK has contributed more than 17 per cent. of the cost of the early phase of Galileo. We also contribute through the EU budgets. Decisions on funding for the next phase have not been taken, and I understand that discussions could proceed well into 2006. GMES was mentioned. It is well known to the DTI and across government. Over the past few years, we have been able to demonstrate the benefits of a series of practical services from the GMES programme. Their value was dramatically shown in the aftermath of the Boxing day tsunami. The UK's achievements in this area are credible, and I want to address some specific issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) mentioned the clear-up of space debris. The UK is working in the inter-agency space debris co-ordination committee—I wish I was a member of it, but, sadly, I am not—to address problems and to develop codes of conduct for the disposal of satellites. It is important that we are concerned not only about waste on our own planet. Education was another theme of the debate. I know from my time as Minister for Lifelong Learning in the then Department for Education and Employment that that is a matter of great concern to Ministers with responsibility for education, and rightly so. We are all concerned about what has happened in respect of physics teaching. There are programmes to address the problem, and to get competent scientists to teach in our schools; there are salary inducements and other incentives. I am not saying that we have entirely cracked the problem, but colleagues are on the case. The development of sector skills councils, which I had a hand in when I had ministerial responsibility in that area, is important, as is the interface with education more generally. I am pleased that the Department for Education and Skills is now a member of the British National Space Centre; that is an example of joined-up policy that shows that we are moving in the right direction. Parliament has shown a strong interest in what we are doing in respect of space. In the past few years, there have been inquiries by the Trade and Industry Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, and the Public Accounts Committee has addressed the subject, too. There has also been discussion of asteroids and the European Space Agency. It is encouraging that there is that level of interest in the subject. Reviews have shown that spending on space is good value—it is a sound investment in an exciting sector that can only become more important. Parliament's interest helps the country to know about space and informs discussion on the subject. We are at the end of an exceptional year in space, and this debate has very much been in keeping with that positive tradition. I will draw the conclusions and judgments of Members in this debate to the attention of Lord Sainsbury of Turville, and I welcome the tributes that have been paid to the important role that he has played in government and industry.