91. The UK spent £197.94 million (approximately $392 million) on civil space activities in 2004-05. In contrast, in 2004 the United States spent approximately $16 billion on civil space, Japan spent $2.5 billion, Russia spent $~0.5 billion, and France spent €1690 million (~$2278 million) on civil space activities.[152] Consequently, whilst other nations such as the US are able to pursue space projects independently, it is necessary for the UK, along with many other countries, to form international partnerships.

European Space Agency

92. The European Space Agency is an international space agency whose aim is to pursue and strengthen European co-operation in space research, technology and applications. It was founded in 1975 with the signing of the ESA Convention. ESA now has seventeen Member States.[153] Hungary and the Czech Republic have officially requested to become members.

93. Membership of ESA benefits the UK in several ways. First, it enables UK scientists to take part in missions that would not otherwise be possible. It is this aspect which led PPARC to describe membership of ESA as "of fundamental importance to UK space science."[154] Second, ESA allows the UK to take a flexible and selective approach towards space programmes. Jean-Jacques Dordain explained that "The flexibility of ESA is a fantastic asset because in this type of organisation we can make the best compromise between the common and the national interest."[155] Third, through ESA the UK can align itself strategically with the space activities of other European countries.[156] Finally, by selecting programmes carefully, the UK has an opportunity to be a major player in a programme. This would not necessarily be the case in a bilateral partnership with another space agency such as NASA where the UK could not direct the programme and would be a junior partner.[157]

94. The UK plays a central role within ESA, particularly in space science and Earth science. Jean-Jacques Dordain, the Director General of ESA, told us that "ESA could not exist without the UK".[158] The UK's user-driven, selective approach to space extends to its involvement in ESA programmes. This means that the UK does not participate in all programmes and when it does fund programmes, it seeks value for money. ESA provided us with several examples of when the UK has taken a steering or decisive role, such as when working towards a reduced programme budget in Toulouse in 1996 or when ESA set up the Herschel/Planck review in 2004.[159]

95. Links between ESA and the UK are maintained through regular meetings between staff from BNSC Headquarter and BNSC partners and staff at ESA. The Minister for Science and Innovation told us that he thought that the UK has a "very good relationship" with ESA and that he planned to visit the agency.[160] Mr Dordain told us that he had met Lord Sainsbury and was planning to meet Malcolm Wicks MP.[161] We are surprised that there has been no contact and believe that in future there should be regular meetings between the Minister responsible and ESA. The UK's involvement in ESA is worthwhile. It enables UK scientists and engineers to take part in programmes that would otherwise be beyond their reach. Given the UK's level of investment in ESA, we urge the Minister with responsibility for space to sustain ongoing contact with the Director General of ESA.

INVESTMENT IN ESA

96. ESA's budget for 2007 is €2,975 million (approximately £2 billion). This budget is relatively small when compared to NASA's budget of over $17 billion (over £8 billion). Member States have to contribute towards ESA's mandatory programme and may choose to contribute to optional programmes. Contributions to the mandatory programme are made at GDP level and cover the space science programme, general administration and basic technology. Contributions to optional programmes, covering Earth observation, satellite navigation, satellite communications, launchers, and exploration, can be made at any level.

97. The UK contributes to the mandatory programme at 17.7% of the budget. It is the second largest contributor in this area behind Germany. Chart 1 illustrates the contributions by Member States to the mandatory programme in 2005.

98. The UK's selective approach to space means that it does not invest in all of ESA's optional programmes. Chart 2 illustrates the average contribution of Member States to optional programmes in 2005.

Source: ESA Annual Report 2005, p110

Chart 2 Contributions by Member States to the ESA optional programmes in 2005 (%)

Source: ESA Annual Report 2005, p 110

99. When averaged across all ESA programmes, the UK's total spend is relatively low compared to other Member States such as France, Germany and Italy. On average, Jean Jacques Dordain told us that France invests in ESA at twice the level corresponding to its Gross National Product (GNP), Germany and Italy invest the corresponding level and the UK invests half.[162] Table 3 shows the different levels of investment by France, Germany, Italy and the UK.

Source: ESA, Ev 339

100. Within ESA, the UK's level of investment has been described as an "anomaly".[163] ESA has raised the question of "whether such an important Member State as the United Kingdom, with such high standing in the domains of space research and development, should not further enhance its funding support in comparison to the other main shareholders."[164]

101. Spend through ESA is, however, quite a high proportion of the UK's overall spend in space. The following table shows that between 50% and 70% of the UK's budget has been spent on ESA activities since 1998. The BNSC notes that in 2006, its spending was further weighted to ESA programmes, thus reducing the proportion of national programme spending.[165]

Source: BNSC

102. We have heard concerns that the balance between national expenditure and expenditure through ESA is wrong. The CCLRC told us that it is critical to achieve this balance.[166] SSTL noted that the "preponderance of UK government funding for space is spent through ESA" and that it is important for the UK to develop a strong national space programme.[167] The UK Space Academic Network argued that it is important for there to be balance between spend through ESA and spend nationally so that scientists can develop mission concepts nationally that might lead to major ESA missions.[168]

Mandatory programme

103. Subscriptions to the mandatory programme cover both the general budget and the space science programme. Since 2003, the UK's subscription to the general budget, covering general administration, corporate costs, education activities and technology transfer, had been split between PPARC (40%), NERC (36%) and DTI (24%). We presume that DIUS will now take responsibility for funding the DTI share.

Source: PPARC

104. The ESA science programme includes solar-terrestrial science, fundamental physics, astrophysics and the exploration of planetary bodies other than the Moon or Mars. PPARC covers the subscription to this programme. Its subscription levels are as follows:

Source: PPARC * estimated level

Optional programmes

105. ESA optional programmes cover a range of different topics. In 2005, the optional programmes accounted for 72% of ESA's overall expenditure.[169] Member States decide at ESA Council meetings at Ministerial level which programmes they wish to fund and at what level. These so-called 'Ministerials' take place every few years. There were meetings, for example, in Berlin in 2005, in Paris in 2003 and in Edinburgh in 2001. The next Ministerial is expected to take place at the end of 2008.

106. ESA encourages countries to subscribe to optional programmes in proportion to their GDP. On these terms, the UK should subscribe at a 17.7% level to optional programmes. ESA estimates that on average the UK contributed at a 5% level.[170] The main programmes to which the UK subscribes are:

• the Aurora programme, which is Europe's plan for the robotic and human exploration of the solar system focusing initially on Mars;
• the Advanced Research into Telecommunications programme (ARTES), which is the main way that ESA supports applied technology development for space and ground segment equipment;
• the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security programme (GMES), which will use observation data received from Earth observation satellites and ground-based information in order to inform action on environment and security;
• Galileo, which is a European-built satellite positioning system designed to complement GPS;
• the Earth Observation Envelope Programme (EOEP), which supports science missions for environmental monitoring and Earth observation, and
• Ariane, the European launcher programme.

The UK currently subscribes to the following programmes:

Source : Ev 383-384

The UK takes a selective approach to ESA optional programme in line with its user-led approach. In relation to launchers for example, the UK subscribes to two out of ten possible options in this area. In the exploration area the UK contributes to the Aurora programme but not human spaceflight or microgravity programmes. The UK's selective approach means that its overall spend through ESA is much less than that of other Member States. Launcher and exploration both have significant budgets within ESA. In 2005, approximately 21% of the total ESA budget was allocated to the launchers programme and 19% was allocated to the human spaceflight, microgravity and exploration programme.[171] Although there are individual optional programmes where investment could be increased, as discussed separately in chapters four and seven, we support the UK's selective approach to ESA and we believe that the UK has maintained on average a reasonable level of investment in ESA programmes.

ESA's industrial policy

107. ESA is the single biggest source of civil public sector contracts for the European space industry. When ESA was created there was a desire to ensure that industrial returns from its programmes were spread between the Member States. The ESA Convention sets out four objectives of ESA's industrial policy:

i.  Cost-efficiency

ii.  Competitiveness of industry

iii.  Equal distribution of activities or juste retour

iv.  Competitive bidding.[172]

The importance of the third principle, the equal distribution of activities or juste retour, has been particularly highlighted during this inquiry. This is intended to ensure that Member States receive a return in work contracts proportionate to their contribution to the ESA budget. It is designed to ensure that contracts are not consistently awarded to larger countries with more developed space industries. The result is that Member States are often under pressure from their industries to contribute to programmes in order to ensure industrial contracts. Defra told us that it was interesting to see other Member States increasing their commitment to the GMES, driven by "commitment to their respective national space industry".[173] Many of the arguments we have heard from industry for increased funding for programmes such as GMES, Galileo, and ARTES are linked to the return that they could expect from ESA under the juste retour principle.[174]

108. In June 2005, the ESA Council agreed a hierarchy of return rules where the overall return to a Member State prevails over the individual rules established at programme level. The minimum overall return is fixed at 0.94 at the end of the next five year period. If the UK invested £1 in ESA, it should expect 94p in industrial contracts to the UK.[175] The principle of fair distribution is not applicable to programmes implemented by ESA for third parties, or for the share of programmes which include non-ESA contributions.

109. Given the long-term nature of space projects and the programme subscriptions extended over several years, ESA monitors the return to Member States in five year cycles. There is inevitably a small amount of variation on an annual basis. The UK has, however, seen significant changes in its return. The graph below, provided by ESA, shows the varying levels of return coefficient and surplus deficit. The return coefficient is the industrial return divided by the level of subscription. If the subscription and industrial return were equal, the return coefficient would be 1.

Source: ESA: Ev 345

The graph illustrates that the UK received significant over return between 2000 and 2003 and has since suffered from an under return. The over return between 2000 and 2002 was due to the misallocation of contracts to the UK, as explored by the NAO in its report in 2004.[176]

110. ESA has told us that at the end of 2006 the current under return to the UK was approximately €78 million. There are several reasons for this under return. First, the increase in the UK's GDP has meant that its subscription level for the mandatory programme has risen from 13% to 17%. Industrial return should have increased proportionally but this has taken time to filter through. Second, UK industry has undergone significant restructuring. In 1994, British Aerospace Space Systems was acquired by Matra Marconi Space. In 1998, Matra Marconi closed its space facility at Filton, Bristol. Matra Marconi subsequently merged with Marconi Electronic Systems to create BAE Systems. In 2000, BAE Systems merged with the space division of DaimlerChrysler Aerospace to form Astrium. The landscape in the UK has consequently changed and it has been difficult for ESA to place industrial contracts with companies in the UK. Finally, in 2003 ESA's Eddington space science programme was cancelled, reducing industrial return in an area of UK interest. [177]

111. The BNSC, PPARC and ESA have all taken action in relation to the under return. BNSC told us that the Director General of ESA, the then Minister of Science and Innovation Lord Sainsbury and the Director General of BNSC had been involved directly.[178] The BNSC has studied the individual year returns and worked out where the deficit had been created. PPARC and BNSC are currently monitoring the placement of ESA contracts.[179] ESA has acted by "a procedure of identifying at the beginning of new programmes the fraction that the prime contractor has to put into UK work."[180] In Gaia and Bepi-Columbo programmes for example, ESA has agreed with the Prime contractor, Astrium, that 25-26% of contracts should be awarded to its UK branch. ESA has also adapted its procurement approach in new programmes so that UK contributions match industrial capacity and hence return.[181] Dr David Williams explained that ESA will "release tenders where the UK will be specifically over-returned to try and re-establish the pattern of funding so that we get the right level."[182]

112. David Southwood, the Director of Science programmes at ESA, told us on 19 March 2007 that "the UK has come back and is now around 20 million deficit so we are within our requirement which is 94% return".[183] He had been worried by the under return two or three years ago but now felt that the UK was "on an even kilter".[184] He reassured us that there was not a fundamental structural problem in the UK. Dr David Williams supported this assessment, saying that "It is an issue that was really from 2002 to about 2004 where the problem arose in specific years and it shows in the statistics."[185] We have been told that the process of rebalancing will take time because contracts have to feed through the system and the UK's selective approach to space means that there is less scope for immediate corrective action.[186] The BNSC predicted that the under return would have disappeared by 2009-2010.[187] We acknowledge that all involved have taken action in order to remedy the under return to the UK. We recommend that the BNSC develop a strategy with ESA over the next year in order to ensure that this situation does not recur.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

113. When ESA was created it had 11 Member States. The membership has risen to 17 without any changes in the structure. The Director General of ESA, Jean-Jacques Dordain told us that in five years time ESA is likely to have a membership of between 22 and 25 states. [188] Programmes will have to be split between more countries and there is greater likelihood of dissension during decision-making. Member States will have to be more selective about their participation in programmes. David Williams of BNSC told us that

as Europe expands, it will be impossible for every nation to be involved in every mission and Europe will need to be more collegiate about how it approaches satellite and satellite systems and space systems. Therefore, the concepts of subsets of Europe being involved in one area and subsets in another area will have to become more and more the vogue as you move to 27 countries because you cannot split a programme up 27 ways sensibly and efficiently.[189]

An increase in the number of Member States would also have an impact upon juste retour because it would be difficult to ensure that all countries involved in a programme had some level of industrial return. Dr Williams told us that the juste retour principle would probably disappear if the membership increased to 25.[190] The UK could be well-placed in this environment due to its experience of selecting ESA programmes.

114. The UK has played a key role in encouraging ESA to consider the impact of enlargement. Mr Dordain told us that he was "expecting a lot from the UK" in relation to discussion on the new organisational framework and wants "the full support of the UK in helping me to change the decision making process", to decrease the number of decisions by unanimity and perhaps introduce weighting factors for decisions concerning budgets and procurement.[191] At the moment three contributing states already represent two-thirds of the budget. 14 Member States represent only one third.[192] A decision on voting could be taken as early as 2008.[193] We recognise the work that BNSC has undertaken helping ESA with the reform of its processes and encourage the BNSC to continue working in this area.

115. ESA has a number of centres and research facilities throughout Europe: its headquarters are in Paris, the Astronauts centre is in Cologne, the astronomy centre is near Madrid, the space operations centre is in Darmstadt, the Earth observation centre is near Rome and the Research and Technology Centre is in the Netherlands. Indeed, the UK is the only major contributor without an ESA centre, but this may change.[194] In October 2006, Lord Sainsbury suggested that an ESA centre might be established in the UK and in February 2007, following a formal discussion between BNSC and ESA, a joint ESA/UK working group was set up to evaluate the options and make recommendations.[195] Mr Dordain told us that the working group would report on 31 May 2007. If it recommended that an ESA centre should be established in the UK, the final decision would be made by the ESA Member States, probably at the ESA Ministerial in 2008. [196]

116. The ESA has made it clear that the proposal for a centre would have to fulfil several criteria: serving UK interests, serving ESA interests, avoiding duplication with existing ESA centres, and making best use of and creating synergies with technical expertise already existing in the UK.[197] There are several areas that a UK centre could focus upon, such as the study of samples from planets, science programming or applications.

117. We are hopeful that a UK centre of the ESA will be established. Dr Williams told us that "Politically and psychologically, it is a done deal. I think we have to identify something we can bring in, in a tangible way which will bring benefit to the UK without overloading the system in the UK".[198] The then Minister, Malcolm Wicks MP, told us that a facility in the UK would "be very important and indeed would show our commitment to ESA".[199] The Director General of ESA told us that he supported the proposal.[200] We believe that the establishment of an ESA centre in the UK would be beneficial and recommend that the BNSC pursue this aim as a priority.

European Union and European Commission

118. The UK is increasingly becoming involved in space-related projects at an EU level as well as through the ESA. For several years the EU and ESA have been developing a framework for managing future space-related activities in Europe through a European Space Policy. The policy was first outlined in a Green Paper in January 2003.[201] In November of that year, the European Commission adopted a White Paper on space, Space: A New European Frontier for an Expanding Union.[202] In June 2004, a panel of experts on space, security and defence was established to consider the key points that should be covered in a European space policy. The panel reported in March 2005, and in May 2005 the Commission released a draft document, European Space Policy—Preliminary Elements.[203] In June 2005, EU and ESA Ministers responded to the draft. Finally, on 26 April 2007, the Commission adopted the European Space Policy. [204]

119. The European Space Policy states that Europe needs an effective space policy to enable it to exert global leadership in selected policy areas in accordance with European interest and values.[205] It aims to establish coordination of national and European space activities, to increase synergy between defence and civil space programmes, and to create a joint international relations strategy in space. It seeks to develop and exploit space applications, to meet security and defence needs, to ensure a strong industry, to contribute to the knowledge-based society and to ensure unrestricted access to new technologies. The focus is upon using space to provide services, rather than developing space projects driven by prestige. This approach is in keeping with the joint initiatives that are already being pursued by the Commission and the ESA: Galileo and GMES. Galileo is intended to provide satellite navigation data to aid transportation and GMES will provide Earth observation data for security and environment.

120. The UK Government has emphasised that the European Space Policy should focus on the uses of space, rather than the development of space as an end in itself. When Malcolm Wicks MP was Minister for Energy, he responded to a debate in Westminster Hall on space policy, saying that:

The EU is an increasingly important user of space, and we support an approach in which Commission directorates use space when that is the best means to achieve policy goals. It should not seek to enhance its status by prestige projects, however."[206]

This message has been reiterated recently by the BNSC who stated that "the ESP should aim to use space to provide services to EU citizens where it makes economic sense to do so and not as an end in itself."[207]

121. The policy aims of the European Space Policy will be supported by research and development through the EU's Framework Programme 7 (FP7), which will run for seven years from 1 January 2007. The programme is open to European public and private entities of all sizes and incorporates provision for the participation of non-EU countries. Participation is on an internationally collaborative basis with proposals being evaluated by panels of independent experts against set criteria. The broad objectives of FP7 have been grouped in to four categories: co-operation, ideas, people, and capacities. Within the co-operation programme, there are ten thematic areas. Unlike its predecessors, FP7 includes a thematic priority for space, which will provide €1.4 billion. The majority of this funding will go to support research related to the GMES programme (paragraph 240). Proposals for the development of applications relevant to Galileo are eligible for funding under the Transport theme of FP7: €4.1 billion has been earmarked for funding transport research over the seven-year duration of FP7 and emphasis will be given to aeronautics, air transport, sustainable surface transport and support for Galileo. According to DfT, the Commission is planning to spend €350 million over seven years on Galileo-related research under FP7, covering exploiting Galileo's full potential, providing tools and creating the environment, allowing infrastructure evolution and adapting receives.[208]

122. The BNSC has been closely involved in the development of FP7 and the European Space Policy. Dr Williams said that "We have people dedicated to work on that [FP7] and, on the European space policy, I spend quite a bit of my time going to the meetings and being involved, so the answer is that we are very strong and we are very positive".[209] The then Minister, Malcolm Wicks told us he was "very excited" by FP7 and said that he anticipated UK space scientists receiving more than the national share of the budget.[210] We note that the BNSC is "seeking to ensure that UK organisations will have maximum opportunity to access available research funds."[211] Our predecessor Committee drew attention to the importance of Government support for applicants to the Framework programmes in its report, UK Science and Europe: Value for Money.[212] We welcome the European Space Policy and the inclusion of space in Framework Programme 7. We recommend that BNSC Headquarters in partnership with DIUS or the STFC hold a series of workshops in order to inform the space community about recent developments. The BNSC should advertise opportunities for scientists and companies arising from FP7 and should provide advice on applications where necessary.

Bilaterals

123. As well as pursuing space programmes through European collaboration, the UK has undertaken several bilateral projects. Bilateral missions have several advantages. First, they can be tailored to specific UK needs where opportunities are not available within ESA. Second, they can assist UK companies in securing access to new markets. Third, they can facilitate access to specific projects for UK scientists and finally, they develop good relations internationally. According to PPARC, the UK "is seen as a desirable international partner […] largely due to the quality and expertise of UK space scientists and engineers."[213]

124. The UK has undertaken numerous negotiations with countries outside ESA. In relation to science missions, PPARC's principal partners for bilateral missions have been the USA and Japan.[214]

Source: Ev 353-355

125. Several submissions to our inquiry emphasised the growing importance of China and India. A recent ESA report noted that "China has achieved mastery of all space technologies, including human spaceflight […] and […] India is already at the leading edge of environment monitoring."[215] The Director General of ESA emphasised that "Using the current technology, China will be more competitive than any other space power in the world."[216] The BNSC has maintained its relationship with the India Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and has been working to develop its relationship with the China National Space Administration. It has developed a UK-China space science and technology working group.

126. The UK has historically had a close connection with NASA. As NASA is beginning to undertake a $100 billion lunar exploration programme, there may be new opportunities for US/UK collaboration. The UK's relationship with NASA is demonstrated by the fact that "over the last 10 years NASA has established over 900 international agreements with organizations from 68 countries. Ten partners account for 75 percent of these agreements and the UK is one of those 10 partners."[217] This connection with NASA has been strengthened in recent months. On 30 November 2006, Malcolm Wicks MP, the then Minister for Science and Innovation met Dr Michael Griffin, NASA's Administrator to discuss possible avenues for collaboration. On 19 April 2007, Dr Griffin and Professor Sir Keith O'Nions, DGSI, signed a joint statement of intent for cooperation in the field of space exploration, stating that there would be "technical discussions on potential cooperative lunar exploration activities."[218] We will deal with the specifics of a potential collaborative project in Chapter 10 on exploration. The level of NASA's budget (paragraph 91)means that the UK would inevitably be a minor partner in any collaboration. NASA, however, told us that this level of contribution need not be a barrier because "A key longstanding guideline for NASA's international cooperation has been that contributions from any partner need not be equivalent."[219]

127. Funding is a key problem in pursuing bilateral missions because the majority of UK funding is channelled through the ESA (paragraph 18). Professor Len Culhane from the UK Space Academic Network told us that "The key issue which is involved here is the comparatively small volume of our national programme as distinct from that which is directly related to ESA".[220] He emphasised that "we could get much more bang for buck, so to speak, if we were able to choose from a broader spectrum of partners."[221] The University of Leicester stated that "the small scale of UK national funding relative to our mandatory ESA contribution does not easily allow participation in bilateral missions with non-ESA partners."[222]

128. There is also the question of whether the UK should undertake bilateral missions on a strategic basis, for example collaborating with China now because China will be a leader in the space field in the future, or whether missions should continue to be decided purely on an assessment of their scientific benefits in the short term. Professor Rowan-Robinson from the Royal Astronomical Society supported the latter option, saying that "you should go for the best scientific missions […] I am not so much in favour of saying, 'Let's do a mission with Nigeria' just for the sake of it because it is cheap; it has got to be good science."[223] PPARC states that its "primary rationale for investment in space is to yield scientific return" but it notes that "other countries (eg. Within Europe, Italy) and elsewhere (China and India) are placing increased priority on investment in space science activities as part of strategic national policy."[224]

129. We acknowledge the BNSC's work in encouraging collaboration with other countries such as China and welcome the recent joint statement of intent with NASA. However, the development of new opportunities must not be undertaken if there will be a reduction in scientific quality. We recommend that the BNSC outline its current activities and future intentions in international collaboration in the forthcoming strategy.

153   Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Back

154   Ev 194 Back

155   Q 543  Back

156   As above. Back

157   As above.  Back

158   Q 532 Back

159   Ev 338 Back

160   Qq 583, 582 Back

161   Q 528 Back

162   Q 539 Back

163   Q 531  Back

164   Ev 339 Back

165   Ev 361 Back

166   Ev 191 Back

167   Ev 272 Back

168   Ev 178 Back

169   ESA, Annual Report 2005, p 108  Back

170   Ev 339  Back

171   ESA, Annual Report 2005, p 108  Back

172   ESA Convention Annex V, www.esa.int/convention Back

173   Ev 284 Back

174   Ev 131 Back

175   Ev 341 Back

176   NAO, The United Kingdom's Civil Space Activities, March 2004, HC 359, p 22 Back

177   Q 590  Back

178   Ev 359 Back

179   Ev 121, 195  Back

180   Q 560  Back

181   Ev 342 Back

182   Q 590 Back

183   Q 560 Back

184   Q 561  Back

185   Q 590  Back

186   Ev 359  Back

187   Q 592 Back

188   Q 523 Back

189   Q 130  Back

190   Q 145 Back

191   Qq 528-529, 524-525  Back

192   Q 524 Back

193   Q 529 Back

194   Ev 191 Back

195   Ev 340-341 Back

196   Q 597 Back

197   Ev 340 Back

198   Q 147 Back

199   Q 588 Back

200   Q 563  Back

201   European Commission, European Space Policy, EUR 20459, January 2003; European Scrutiny Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2002-03, HC 63-xiii; European Scrutiny Committee, para 2, Thirtieth Report of Session 2002-03, HC 63-xxx, para 15 Back

202   European Commission, Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union, EUR 20916, November 2003; European Scrutiny Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04, HC 42-ii, para 1; Stg Co Deb, European Standing Committee C, European Space Policy, 11 February 2004 Back

203   EC, European Space Policy-Preliminary Elements, SEC(2005)664, May 2005; European Scrutiny Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, HC 34-i, para 22; European Scrutiny Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2005-06, HC 34-vii, para 7 Back

204   EC. European Space Policy, SEC(2007)504, April 2007  Back

205   As above, p 4 Back

206   HC Deb, 23 November 2005, col 437WH  Back

207   BNSC, A Consultation on the UK Civil Space Strategy 2007-2010, p 23  Back

208   Ev 290 Back

209   Q 158 Back

210   Q 648  Back

211   Ev 121 Back

212   Science and Technology Committee, Sixth Report , Session 2002-03, UK Science and Europe: Value for Money? HC 386-I Back

213   Ev 195 Back

214   As above. Back

215   "ESA Council Meeting at Ministerial Level", ESA News, 5 December 2005  Back

216   Q 557  Back

217   Ev 404 Back

218   BNSC & NASA, Joint Statement of Intent for Cooperation in the Field of Space Exploration, April 2007 (www.bnsc.gov.uk) Back

219   Ev 403  Back

220   Q 432 Back

221   As above. Back

222   Ev 164 Back

223   Q 433 Back

224   Ev 195 Back