WEDNESDAY 18 APRIL 2007

MALCOLM WICKS MP, AND DR DAVID WILLIAMS

  Q600  Chairman: Sorry, Brian, to interrupt your line of thinking but just to follow that, are you putting specific money into research in this area? Is there a specific proposal to do it?

  Malcolm Wicks: No it is at a much earlier stage than that, Chairman, but it is something I have discussed with some of the experts I have met and what they tell me is in principle this kind of work could be undertaken.

  Q601  Dr Spink: Would this involve people have transducers upon them?

  Malcolm Wicks: It would involve them having something on them, would it not? This is at a very early stage but, as I say, when I hear about how we can now monitor crops to see if they are being fertilised appropriately as an aid to farmers, when I hear what we can do about traffic management, I am wondering if there is a bit of a lack of vision here about helping us tackle some of the societal issues that we face.

  Q602  Dr Iddon: Malcolm, throughout this inquiry, which has been quite an interesting one, and I am sure every member of the Committee has learned a lot about space research, one thing that has come out quite strongly is the investment that China and even India are putting into space research now is likely to exceed—far exceed in terms of China—what we are investing here in the UK (admittedly they are a bigger country) and possibly might exceed what ESA is investing across Europe. Do you think that we are investing enough across Europe, not just in the UK, in space research in order to compete with these two countries in particular?

  Malcolm Wicks: Well, I think myself that we can get too gloomy and pessimistic when we look at some of the data or the estimates coming out of the big emerging economies like India and China. As a more general point, I think it is important that we present globalisation and that kind of global competition as a rather exciting challenge rather than get too gloomy and doomy about the huge numbers of graduates in physics and science coming out of those countries. Having said that, there obviously is a competitive element. As I have said, we need to make sure that Britain has its fair share and perhaps more than its fair share commercially of this very, very exciting market. I have given you some data as best we can try to estimate it of our share at the moment of international markets. It is important to the British economy in terms of jobs, small companies' investment, share of GDP, et cetera, et cetera. I think we are in a pretty good place but are we going to be able to compete at scale in terms of expenditure with China in X years' time? No, we are not and therefore a) we need to be selective about the things that we do and the things that we do best (and we have mentioned those already) and b) we need to make sure that we are co-operating properly as we are, and we have had some discussion about the juste retour side with ESA but also with NASA. I think that is another very important element of it and soon after I became Science Minister I had an opportunity—he was in London—of meeting Mike Griffin, the head of NASA. We had some very useful conversations about that and I am pleased to say that I think it is tomorrow we are going to be able to announce—and I announce it first to the Committee—that we are signing an outline agreement with NASA which puts down both our own ambitions and NASA's ambitions for further collaboration between the UK and the United States in terms of space science and space exploration. That is an agreement that will be signed by my colleague, our Director General, Sir Keith O'Nions, I think it is tomorrow (I am just trying to work out the hours' difference, in the United States). I think that is the way we should proceed. We play to our strengths, we develop strengths both scientifically and commercially but we collaborate internationally. Can I say, Chairman, that I think myself the future here is going to be in terms of space exploration to Mars and the rest, and surely what we need to do is for that to be an international endeavour, an international expedition, and I think we are very committed to internationalism in terms of space science and space exploration.

  Dr Iddon: Thank you for that announcement.

  Q603  Chairman: Could we have a copy of that tomorrow, is that possible?

  Malcolm Wicks: Yes of course.

  Dr Iddon: Which is good news and we will return to the collaboration with NASA later on in this inquiry.

  Q604  Chairman: Finally, Malcolm, you said the EU is an increasingly important user of space. Personally I was disappointed when you responded to Graham's question about whether you had met with ESA. What particular role have you had in developing EU space policy given that there is a move to actually incorporate ESA's functions within the broader EU policy framework? Have you had any meetings in Europe at all on space policy? Can I ask you, Minister, whether you have had any meetings at all in this area?

  Malcolm Wicks: I obviously meet with my officials on this a lot. The strategy now is to develop towards the ministerial meeting, which we mentioned just now, next year.

  Q605  Chairman: Our involvement is regarded as weak in Europe and you are saying that you have had no ministerial meetings in Europe at all on space policy?

  Malcolm Wicks: At meetings of the European Councils I attend there are informal discussions on this of course, yes, but I have not been to ESA yet.

  Q606  Dr Turner: Malcolm, we have heard quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the actual way in which we run space in Britain, our organisational structures, are not as good or as effective as they might be. One example is the comment of the Royal Astronomical Society that the current format of the BNSC is "not serving the needs of the country nor the space community". That is not a criticism of the individuals involved but of the fact that BNSC is not set up with enough clout to be effective. Do you have a view on this? Can you see a way of improving this?

  Malcolm Wicks: I think my view on this is that BNSC has been a success and I think it is an important partnership but I am open-minded, to be blunt, about the future. I do not get as excited as some about organisational structures or departmental reorganisations. I know this excites a lot of interest and makes for quite an interesting bullet point recommendation or sound byte but I am more interested in substance and I am impressed as I have learned about the work that BNSC is doing. You may be aware that the NAO looked at BNSC and if I can just quote, they said: "Our analysis shows that the partnership approach is a cost-effective way of securing the benefits of national and international co-operation on space programmes. This is because it ensures that partners consider the benefits of expenditure on space against alternative investments whilst also avoiding duplication", so the NAO seem to have been impressed by this. Whether it is the right model for the future, I would be interested in the views of the Committee, and I am open-minded about it. I do not think however, Chairman, simply by rebadging something in exciting language the "UK Space Agency" or "BASA" or something necessarily helps us take strides forward. I think actually in an era where we all talk about joined-up government BNSC since 1985 has very much been a forerunner of how we bring different bits of government together. As I say, I am open-minded about it and I would welcome advice.

  Q607  Dr Iddon: I think the feeling in the space community—and I share your intrinsic distrust of simply looking at structures for their own sake—is that because the BNSC does not have its own resources to call on that undermines its effectiveness. What would your reaction be to the reform of the BNSC into an agency with its own budget and giving it a yet stronger co-ordinating role, because there are various gaps in our space activities where things do not quite match up and where if we had an agency with a specific role we could in fact do better?

  Malcolm Wicks: I have said what I have said, that I think the BNSC has strengths and I think it has been a forerunner of how to join things up. I have also said I am open-minded about the future. It is probably one of these issues where at one level you could argue that space should be regarded as a specific thing and therefore maybe it should have its own agency or on the other hand you might think of at least some of this side of things where perfectly properly a range of different agencies, some private, some public sector, will have an interest in space technology so it is perfectly proper and not surprising that the MoD, the Department for Transport and maybe in the future DFID, Defra, the DTI in terms of telecommunications because the DTI have an interest in satellite technology and might want to invest particularly in different aspects of satellite technology for different specific purposes to meet certain objectives. Would a space agency help that or hinder that? It is an interesting question, is it not?

  Q608  Dr Turner: It is an interesting question because it could be the home for some of the skills co-ordinating gaps, if you like, for want of a better description, that currently exist. The mismatch between end user requirements and environmental monitoring systems is one example. Obviously as the DTI you have a very considerable influence over BNSC's agenda. Do you think the relationship is too close? Do you drive BNSC? Does BNSC have to come to you for advice or direction? What is the relationship?

  Malcolm Wicks: The structure of the body is such that it has a relationship with a number of different agencies, the research council and different departments. We are obviously the parent department I think it is fair to say—

  Q609  Dr Turner: And the major funder?

  Malcolm Wicks: Are we the major funder?

  Dr Williams: It is separated into the NERC and the STFC budget and the DTI budget.

  Malcolm Wicks:—the arm's length research council funding. But obviously we are the parent department in terms of space science. One issue I have been reflecting on just recently is what I said, namely that there are a number of departments now interested in satellite technology with objectives there and I am actually going to have what will initially be—and I am happy to tell you about this—an informal meeting (in other words it will not be a new ministerial group as such) of fellow ministers in different departments with an interest in satellite technology so that we can make sure that we are in the right place and there is no unnecessary duplication and that maybe there are some of the issues you are looking at can be more effectively tackled. I think that is an initiative that we now need.

  Q610  Adam Afriyie: You have mentioned that you have an open mind as regards BNSC and perhaps the creation of a space agency and you will await the outcome of this Committee's report. It seems to me that the BNSC does some good work in allocating funding and co-ordinating to a certain degree but is your mind open enough to entertain the idea of perhaps a separate body that performs some of those functions that BNSC is not performing so well?

  Malcolm Wicks: A separate body?

  Q611  Adam Afriyie: A separate body from BNSC which fulfils those functions that perhaps BNSC has not been as good at doing.

  Malcolm Wicks: I do not see the case for a separate body. As I say, I am interested in the argument about the evolution of the BNSC. That is not to say that there is going to be some great announcement of change. I am just being honest with you about trying to assess the pros and cons of an agency as opposed to what we have now. There are so many issues for those of us interested in governance that cut across departments and it is often easier to bring it all together into a new thing, a new ministry or a new non-departmental public body—people can pick and choose—but you have got to be a little bit sensible about this and, as I say, against that is the fact that perfectly legitimately a number of different agencies and government departments have an interest in space technology. It is a cross-cutting issue for many departments.

  Q612  Adam Afriyie: So you are saying that you would not entertain the idea of having a separate body that plugs the gaps where the BNSC is perhaps not filling it?

  Malcolm Wicks: It sounds a bit ruthless "I would not entertain it"; I do not see the case for it at the moment, no.

  Q613  Dr Turner: A couple of the major players on the scene just amalgamated to form "Swindon Town Football Club". What effect do you think this is going to have on the effectiveness of the BNSC?

  Malcolm Wicks: Just remind me about the importance of Swindon Town Football Club.

  Q614  Dr Turner: The amalgamation between PPARC and the CCLRC. It is just an easy way to remember the acronym.

  Malcolm Wicks: The football club has a very proud record.

  Q615  Chairman: The Science and Technology Facilities Research Council.

  Malcolm Wicks: I understand what you are saying. We have discussed before the reason for bringing that together. It seems a sensible amalgamation to have taken place and given the importance of that new now amalgamated research council that puts us in a stronger position to fund appropriate space science and technology, so I think it was a good move otherwise we would not have agreed to it.

  Q616  Dr Turner: Do you think it will be a stronger driver than the two were separately in the past?

  Malcolm Wicks: I think the two separately did a good job but I think it will be a stronger driver, yes.

  Q617  Graham Stringer: Why does the UK employ a user-driven approach to space?

  Malcolm Wicks: A user-driven approach to space?

  Q618  Graham Stringer: Yes.

  Malcolm Wicks: I think that is not wholly true. Obviously in terms of applications, Defra's interest, Transport's interest, I think the answer to that is fairly clear, is it not, but I think in terms of the role of the research council and the work in universities that there is a lot of basic research going on. Is that not right?

  Q619  Graham Stringer: Well, it is normal for us to ask the questions. You said that space is very exciting, the "to boldly go" attitude to space exploration and scientific discovery, but, as I understand it, we will wait for Defra or whichever department to decide they want something, and that is what I mean by a user-driven approach to space. What I am interested in is whether you think that is the right approach and what are the benefits and disbenefits of that approach?

  Malcolm Wicks: And I had the temerity to ask a question back to tease out exactly what your question was about.