Space Industry

Debate between Mark Garnier and Sheryll Murray

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier]

They are, but it could always be better. Again, I will come to that later, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that support from Government in this complicated sector is incredibly important.

To get back to the export market opportunities, the team at space consultants Space4Sight has identified 25 nations across the globe that are only now starting to show their space interest, all of which would benefit from a collaboration with UK companies and expertise. Indeed, I am heading to Vietnam in a month in my role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Vietnam, and one of the scheduled meetings is to promote UK space exports to that economy, which is growing incredibly strongly. This is a huge opportunity for the UK to grow space technology exports to newly identified space nations.

Although we are good at this stuff, we must not be complacent. We have a lead in many areas, but without the right environment, we could lose out to other nations. We need to think about what space is. I have always seen it as a thriving economic sector, yet I notice that the Government, in their last restructuring, chose to locate it in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, as opposed to the Department for Business and Trade. Space is a business, not a science project. While I have immense respect for those supporting the sector in DSIT, and they have done an incredibly good job, I hope the Minister will reassure me that his Department sees space as a sector that contributes to our economy, with a lot of commercial opportunity.

I would not want the Minister to feel that I do not appreciate what his Department and some other Departments do for the sector. The Government invest directly in space activities and, according to the OECD, our public spending amounts to around 0.025% of our national GDP. It sounds like a small number, but it represents quite a significant amount of money. However, when compared with other countries, it starts to look a bit small. It is half the relative commitment of Germany, India and Belgium. It is a third of the commitment of Italy and Japan, and a quarter of the investment by France and the United States of America. The sector is highly commercial, but because of the challenges of high upfront costs, other countries have discovered that de-risking opportunities for investors through grant funding stimulates private investment. I hope Members of all parties agree that we should get behind stimulating private investment in the sector through grant funding.

We should not necessarily see space as a sector in its own right. We have other assets in the UK that would benefit from a symbiotic relationship with this super high-tech, high-productivity sector of the economy. The City of London has been a global leader of finance and financial markets for a few centuries now. Expertise in trade finance, investment, insurance, currency trading and the wider associated legal service has made the City of London a global financial hub for a long time, but our lead position is always under threat. For the City to remain a leader, it needs to remain relevant.

A few years ago, I prepared a discussion paper on how we can take inspiration from Gordon Brown’s tax interventions in the UK film industry to find a way to stimulate the City as a space finance hub. Gordon Brown created tax breaks for film investment. I suspect a direct line can be drawn from his intervention to the success, for example, of the Harry Potter franchise. That series of films would always have been made but, without that tax incentive, those spells may have been cast with a Hollywood accent.

A selected tax break here, an innovative approach to governance there, and the City could dominate the world as the go-to place to raise money for space-related opportunities. The City would continue its path from being innovative financier of trade across the globe to modern financier of trade beyond the globe. Other ideas are coming out of the City that would be good to get behind. Professor Michael Mainelli, who is now Lord Mayor of London, has been promoting a space protection initiative that looks at the further purchase of space debris retrieval insurance bonds to go on space flights to ensure that any debris could be recovered in the event of a satellite going out of service. Perhaps they could be called space junk bonds.

If we combine that financial expertise with our world-beating universities and wider technical capabilities, the UK will become the destination for all aspiring space entrepreneurs and developers. With imagination for things such as a British space bank, copying the British Business Bank or UK Infrastructure Bank, the funding that the British Government might offer could be leveraged several times. That would reinforce the message that the Government in the UK are not just grant funding but supporting space through innovative strategic partnerships.

Either way, uplifted long-term funding for the space sector to deliver priorities in the national space strategy, such as the space industrial plan; adopting a long-term approach to industrial strategy that includes a policy commitment to grow small and medium-sized enterprises; and an improved wider understanding of the space sector to encourage more people into science, technology, engineering and maths careers, would have an extraordinarily energising effect on this highly productive sector of our economy. That would certainly solve our current productivity conundrum.

There are further ways the Government can help our growing space sector and the many SMEs that participate. SMEs not only act as suppliers to the big primes in programmes and projects, but have their own prime missions and services. That brings world-beating capability to the market. We need to consider how we can further boost the sector. For example, a British space bank might also be an equity investor as well as a debt funder, complementing the UK Space Agency’s grant funding. Government procurement can act as an anchor customer for demonstrator missions. Scaling up the space technology exploitation programme would help, for example, to boost rapid development and implementation of cross-Government space policy programmes, thereby boosting economic activity in the sector.

I want to finish with some thoughts on an area where we are leading the way, and which demonstrates how widespread the application of space technology can be: space-based solar power. I should declare that I serve as the chair of the advisory board of the Space Energy Initiative, a coalition of businesses, academia, Departments and specialists in this burgeoning area of solar energy from space. I also serve as a non-executive director of Space Solar, the UK’s leading company seeking to develop this actually not very new technology. I stress that those are non-financial interests; I give my time on a pro bono basis.

That is an example of how an emerging sector is growing fast right here in the UK. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero sponsored and set up a three-day conference last week to study this area, at which I spoke on the last day. It was astonishing to be in a room with such an extraordinary collection of highly intelligent people, looking at something they all know is not just a probability but a reality that will provide dispatchable, baseload, cheap green energy at gigawatt scale within the next 15 years.

Although many doubters suggest that that is science fantasy, UK primes, the UK Space Agency, international primes, the European Space Agency, leading universities and the UK Government all know that this is a reality. Space-based solar power will happen, with or without UK involvement. We are fast approaching the time when we need to decide whether we are to be the driver of this innovative approach to net zero or just another passenger.

If we seize the opportunity, space-based solar power will provide cheap, clean energy faster and cheaper than nuclear. It will be an astonishing export asset for the UK, be it through licensing the technology to other nations or selling the power directly from the satellites. It will tackle other issues in the UK, such as grid equalisation. I repeat that the UK is leading in this field. It is leading because the Government have supported not just the ESA’s Solaris programme but UK research for UK businesses.

In the last few weeks, a huge success has been achieved in the field of energy beaming through 360° using phased array antennas—and it was done in Belfast. The Government have stepped up to the plate to make this happen, and have indicated possible further support through match funding.

However, it does not matter whether we are talking about space-based solar power, GPS where the technology not only finds the nearest pub but times financial transactions, internet services via OneWeb, or Earth observation that helps everyone from generals in Ukraine to farmers seeking yield improvement. A massive range of services comes from the UK space industry, and many of us do not even realise that they happen. We must therefore strive to make sure that our space entrepreneurs are a success, and that this British business success supports the whole of our economy and public finances. That means that we need Government support, because we do not want to find ourselves, as we have done in the past, inventing something brilliant but not exploiting it commercially. For example, Frank Whittle was a brilliant engineer who invented the jet engine, only to see, a few years later, an American pilot flying an American aeroplane over America, using British technology to break the sound barrier. We do not want to see that again.

We are really, really good at this stuff and the Government know we are. That is why we can never get enough support in this incredible industry. I am conscious that many other Members are keen to speak, but I am sure that the Minister has heard what I have said and I very much look forward to his speech later.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Garnier and Sheryll Murray

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier]

As my hon. Friend knows, my family has roots in Cornwall that go back over 100 years, which I think means that we are now no longer incomers. The Secretary of State, of course, is a south-west MP and I believe he has met Cornish producers, and I am a frequent visitor to the extraordinary county that produces such fabulous produce. At the very first opportunity, I will go with my hon. Friend to meet his constituents and, indeed, people across the whole of Cornwall to explore ways in which we can push this fantastic county’s product.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of New Zealand on future bilateral trade and investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

T5. Many Cornish men and women emigrated to seek work in New Zealand in the late 19th century. Will my hon. Friend now support other great Cornish exports of our wonderful produce, such as Cornish cider produced by Cornish Orchards in my constituency?

[Mark Garnier]

It is good to see the far west of this country being so well represented today, on a one-line Whip just ahead of the recess. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are fantastic products coming from her constituency, including award-winning brands such as Cornish Orchards cider, Cornish Blue and Cornish Gouda. It is absolutely the job of the Department to go out to the rest of the world and, as I said before, to push Cornish exports far beyond the Tamar to the four corners of the globe.

Self-Employment

Debate between Mark Garnier and Sheryll Murray

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier]

Yes. Being a small business man is quite an isolating experience, as many hon. Members will know. People are out there on the front line, struggling to get more business in. They can join network groups and all the rest of it, but they feel like they are in a foxhole, with letters in brown envelopes coming at them from HMRC and all sorts of regulators. That is not necessarily a particularly enthralling experience. My hon. Friend is right.

In addition to accountants and tax specialists to handle tax compliance, a plethora of organisations offer advice on human resources, fire and emergency, health and safety and other things. All that is welcome and they provide an excellent service, but the fact that they are needed and that a sub-class of business advice has been created shows the amount of regulation that we have to face.

The Government have made some progress on access to finance and cash flow. I do not want to be an apologist for the banking crisis. I have to declare an interest here. I was an investment banker and one or two other hon. Members here were, too. It is important to understand that banks have an aversion to risk. Part of the problem faced by the banks is that the Basel III and the Vickers’ recommendations, and so on, are trying to deal with the problem of not wanting the banks to fail. On one hand the banks are being asked to tighten their balance sheet, and on the other they are, rightly, being asked to lend more money. For the banks, those are opposing requests. We need to take great consideration of that as we go through the process of implementing the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking, because we cannot ask the banks to take on more risk and expect them not to go bust. That is a contradiction.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency—with particular reference to the fishing industry—someone receiving training who then wants to start a business needs to purchase a fishing vessel? The banks will not just accept that fishing vessel, although it is a valuable asset, as collateral for a loan. They ask for additional collateral, such as a charge on a property, which a lot of young people do not have. That is stopping industries that support our coastal communities from expanding. Does my hon. Friend think that there is an answer to that?

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend raises two important points. First, on the general point about raising finance for businesses, part of the problem is that, in the past, loans have not so much been business finance loans as mortgages, where a bank has taken a secure guarantee, such as a property, thereby effectively giving a mortgage used to finance a business and the cash flow out of the business is used to service that debt. The feeling that I get out there is that banks have slightly morphed away from being business financers to being mortgage companies dressed up as business financers.

Secondly, my hon. Friend mentions marine finance. We have one of the finest marine businesses in the world. We produce the most fabulously made yachts—we are world class. I hope you will forgive me for getting in a plug for one of my constituents, Mrs Riordan, but Sealine in the middle of landlocked Kidderminster builds very good ocean-going yachts, and if you ever get a chance to take one out, you should. However, this country does not have a significant marine financing industry, and that is a real problem for all the marine industry, whether we are talking about luxury yachts or working fishing boats. I am working with constituents and various marine industry representative bodies to see whether we can address that point, because we must look at it specifically.

In addition to problems with equity and debt, part of the problem businesses face lies with cash flow. All too often, small businesses suffer as a result of delayed payments. To return to the FSB, three quarters of its members have received late payments in the past 12 months, while nearly half claim that a third of invoices are paid late. That is costly in terms of the time spent chasing invoices. In addition, a fifth of the claims for money owing to those businesses are for more than £20,000. Many businesses go bust not because they do not have enough capital or customers, but because of their cash flow. The problem is that, although a business is perfectly viable, it can easily go bust because of a late payment.