Family Justice Reform

Debate between Phillip Lee and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Lee]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As a constituency MP, of course I recognise examples of the situation he describes. I assure him that I will pass on his concerns to the Minister responsible.

[Jim Shannon]

I think the Minister said he was about to conclude, but I wanted to intervene before he did. I know he is not the Minister directly responsible, but individuals in the Chamber have brought some things to his attention. May I request a response from him on each of those individual issues—a comprehensive response, I hope? I certainly wish for a response on the two examples that I brought to his attention.

[Dr Lee]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I will come on shortly to questions asked in speeches and interventions. If I fail to answer all the questions, of course a response will be arranged.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham is not alone in calling for greater transparency in family proceedings. Openness can lead to greater accountability and improve public understanding of the decisions of the court. The Government therefore fully recognise that family proceedings should be as transparent as possible. That is why we welcome the progress that has been made in this area in recent years. Since 2009, accredited media have been allowed access to certain hearings in the family courts, and in 2014 the president of the family division introduced judicial guidance that has resulted in the publication of more judgments than ever.

Arguments in favour of greater transparency, however, must of course be weighed against the need to safeguard children and their family’s privacy. The family courts often consider extremely sensitive information about individuals which should not become public. They must be cautious about putting information in the public domain that, even if anonymised, could lead to the inappropriate identification of vulnerable parties. We continue to work with senior judiciary to ensure that the right balance is struck between transparency and privacy.

I will now respond to some of the specific points made by hon. Members during the debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the role of grandparents. We recognise the important role that grandparents can play in a child’s upbringing. It is obviously preferable to reach an informal agreement on contact with the family, and we encourage families to consider the role that mediation can play. If that fails, grandparents can apply to the court for an order. In answer to the question on cohabitation and civil partnerships, cohabitants have some legal protections under the general law. Parents who have cohabited also have access to the court for orders relating to children. The Government Equalities Office is evaluating the impact that the marriage of same-sex couples has on the take-up of civil partnerships. It will also carefully consider the Court of Appeal judgment before the Government decide on their next steps.

The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) raised the question of access to justice and support for litigants. The Government have taken action to improve support for litigants in person, including sponsorship of plain English guidance. The Family Justice Council has produced a range of accessible guides for separating couples, which are available on the advicenow website. In answer to his earlier intervention with regards to legal aid cuts destroying access to justice, I respond on behalf of the Government that that is not the case. Legal aid is a vital part of our justice system but we must ensure that it is sustainable and fair for those who need it, for those who provide legal services as part of it, and fair for the taxpayer who ultimately pays for it. We have made sure that legal aid continues to be available in the highest priority cases, for example where people’s life or liberty is at stake, or where their children may be taken into care.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) raised the challenges of potential vexatious use of the family courts. We have been working closely with the judiciary to improve in-court protections for vulnerable court users. New court rules and a practice direction come into force this month with the same aim. We are determined also to give family courts power to prevent unrepresented abusers from cross-examining their victims and the court has powers to manage cases appropriately and to prevent vexatious litigation.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) raised the question of the Government agreeing to introduce 50:50 parenting. The Government are aware of the difficulties that non-resident parents can face when attempting to spend meaningful time with their child following separation or divorce. However, introducing an automatic presumption of shared parenting in all cases would not always be in the best interests of the children involved.

I will turn to the first question raised by the shadow Minister, that too many children are taken into care for inadequate reasons. The law is clear that local authorities must first consider placing a child with relatives or friends. A loving, supportive family is the best place to bring up children. The Government have always been clear that the right to permanence option—whether adoption, special guardianship, kinship care or foster care—will always depend on a child’s individual needs and circumstances. The ultimate decision to remove children from their families rests with the court.

With regards to legal aid for private family law proceedings, we have made sure that such aid remains available for victims of domestic abuse. We have reviewed the arrangements for making legal aid available to victims of domestic abuse in private family cases, and we will announce further improvements shortly.

We have had a fantastic debate, with contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, the hon. Member for Strangford, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—who contributed to my belief that the Conservatives should look north of the border for sensible solutions on so many things, including family law—the hon. Member for Wrexham, my hon. Friends the Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Wells, and the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley). I am hopeful that we can work across the House and beyond as we continue efforts to improve the family justice system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Phillip Lee and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

We want community orders to be effective so that further crimes are not committed. This includes better mental health interventions and drugs and alcohol desistance interventions. I am fully aware of the fact that if we can get to grips with the mental health challenges and the substance misuse challenges, crime will go down.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

If the Minister is to address the issue of drug addiction, he will have to address the issue of drugs being smuggled into prison. One method of doing that would be the introduction of new scanning machines similar to those at airports. Has the Minister given any consideration to doing that in prisons, thereby stopping drugs being smuggled by people into prison?

[Dr Lee]

Yes, consideration has been given to that. There is a particular difficulty with new psychoactive substances, because the way in which they are smuggled in—for example, by the impregnation of letters or paper—means that it is difficult to stop them via scanning. The hon. Gentleman should be assured that we are desperate to get a grip on the smuggling and supply of drugs into prisons because of the adverse impact that they are having.

Space Policy

Debate between Phillip Lee and Jim Shannon

Thursday 14th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman remembers this, but he was one of the few Members of the House who attended my Adjournment debate on microgravity. Prior to that I had been contacted primarily from America by Boeing and various other companies on the subject. They pointed out that the microgravity research industry had a potential $100 billion of growth. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the future potential for the space industry.

[Jim Shannon]

I do remember that. It was one of those Adjournment debates that I am known to attend, and I remember intervening along those lines. It was three or four years ago.

Something else that I enjoyed, and that I think was positive, took place last week when Tim Peake was able to make radio contact with young people in a school. The inspiration that that gave to those young people was fantastic, as was the fact that it happened. Those young people were inspired, and they had a photograph and a TV show that showed him in their school making direct contact. I know it was a bit rehearsed, but it was exciting for us to watch. How much more exciting must it have been for the children, both male and female, to have that ambition and inspirational drive to try to be the next Tim Peake in space? As we seek to obtain secure jobs for the future, we need more such encouraging developments, and this has been a welcome opportunity to contribute to a debate on an issue of great importance to the future of our country and its economy.

In conclusion, the new national space policy, the Deregulation Act, and the space innovation and growth strategy are all signs that we are heading in the right direction. The positivity that comes through this debate will be noted not just in this Chamber by MPs, but outside the House and further afield. We can play our part in space travel and policy in future, and I hope that off the back of this debate we can maintain momentum and ensure that those plans turn into real delivery for the “better together” space industry and future economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Heathrow: Noise Mitigation

Debate between Phillip Lee and Jim Shannon

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

Clearly, for the constituencies close to the airport, mitigating noise becomes difficult. The glide approach, with an aircraft using engines less, would be quieter, even in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Some changes can be made. I am realistic enough to know that the constituencies in close proximity to Heathrow will be impacted to some degree, but the impact could be less if we gave some consideration to these suggestions.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Connectivity is very important for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just for Heathrow but for Belfast—Aldergrove—and Londonderry. The importance of having these connections and the benefit to the economy is great. Let me say for the record that my party is fully committed to the expansion of Heathrow. Heathrow has revealed some methods that can go a long way towards addressing the issues of noise for people who live in the area. Perhaps we can hear some of the hon. Gentleman’s ideas on how to reduce the noise in these areas.

[Dr Lee]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I will be passing through Belfast airport soon, and I shall be able to admire the country that he has the privilege to represent a part of.

As I said, I would like to see a clear definition of the continuous descent approach that would require a greater adherence to the 3° path from 8,000 feet down and not just at 4,000 feet, when NATS at Heathrow takes over. This would raise the height of planes above the constituency. Planes are noisiest when there is a faster level of negative vertical speed. Furthermore, I have concerns about arrivals that have not been stacked or that come out of the Ockham or Biggin stack at 8,000 feet and have to descend to about 4,000 feet for their final approach. If NATS were mandated to take noise mitigation seriously, that would become much less of an issue for residents on the ground.

Another area with scope for improvement is the way in which certain noisy aircraft are dealt with. Has the Department for Transport considered banning such aircraft from taking off and landing between 9.30 pm and 7.30 am? The retrofitting of noise-reducing devices to Airbus A320s is being actively encouraged by Heathrow, but about 20% of A320s operating at Heathrow have yet to have them installed. Will the Department issue guidance on this? One airline operating a few A320s without the retrofit can have a huge noise impact.

With old planes, as they get sold on and have a life of 30 years or more, a ban might be the only way to actually get them retired from service. That is particularly applicable to new, low-cost, long-haul carriers. In addition, aircraft manufacturers could do a great deal more: no manufacturer offers streamlining for its landing gears, for example. Manufacturers could also modify their advice for airlines on operating techniques to reduce noise, including additional use of speed brakes located on the upper side of aircraft, which, if used instead of flaps, would further reduce noise.

I very much hope that the Minister will be able to bring about a resolution to at least some of the problems I have outlined. It is quite easy, as Members can tell, to get bogged down in the detail of the issue, but the best solution most certainly involves a far more robust mandate for NATS or, perhaps, the Civil Aviation Authority.

I have long been a proponent of Heathrow expansion, primarily based on the economic benefits it would bring for my constituency of Bracknell and the Thames valley region, and on its wider implications for the UK’s long-term prosperity. Heathrow expansion offers the best prospects for stimulating the local economy by supporting and creating jobs. An expanded Heathrow would also play an important role in the continued economic success of the Thames valley, ensuring that it retained its position as a hub of innovation, productivity and prosperity.

I am determined, however, that current usage of Heathrow airport, and any future expansion, should not come at the expense of the health and wellbeing of local communities. In particular, when Heathrow is on easterly operations, some residents in the Thames valley can be blighted by aircraft noise for up to 19 hours a day. That has happened a lot recently.

Mobile Army Surgical Hospital

Debate between Phillip Lee and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

I never thought I would see the day when the words “Mobile Army Surgical Hospital” would be the title of a debate of mine. I grew up watching the television series “MASH”, which partly inspired me to become a doctor. I want to make a serious proposal about a capability that this country should be able to deploy abroad. I started thinking about the issue following the Syria vote in August. I voted against both motions before the House that day. After that, I thought that I should come forward with a constructive suggestion for our engagement with the crisis in Syria. This is my suggestion.

I will present a history of field hospitals in general—just a brief one; don’t worry—and discuss the humanitarian response capability that we need. I shall then mention the challenges of bringing that about and, perhaps more importantly, the details of the facility.

I became a doctor for a number of reasons, but a couple of things spring to mind. One is a book called “The Red and Green Life Machine” written by a commander in the Royal Navy, a chap called Rick Jolly. The title refers to a field hospital in the Falklands war, set up in a disused abattoir in San Carlos bay. I read the book when I was about 13. I watched every single episode of “MASH” and developed desire and ambition—initially, to become a trauma orthopaedic surgeon. I subsequently went to medical school and decided that I would be a GP. What inspired me was the desire to do something to help people in distress.

However, I stress that I am no pacifist. I did not vote in August against the intervention lightly; in fact, I am in favour of quite significant intervention if it is well thought through, coherent and backed up with a strategy for the region. However, I am against the wilful, somewhat reckless destruction of assets in a small way because that can breed more problems going forward.

We are experiencing the ongoing crisis in Syria through our TV screens. I first visited the country in 1998 and I went back as vice-chairman of the Conservative middle east council in February 2011, about three weeks before the civil war started. I have a sense of association with the country. I enjoyed both my visits—particularly the first one, when I was backpacking around as a medical student. I visited Homs, Hama and the beautiful parts of Aleppo that I fear are no longer intact. When I came back from my second visit, I was gripped with a sense of foreboding that trouble was about to start, although not as quickly as it did. I also felt the sense that Britain’s engagement with the country in its crisis should be constructive and trying desperately to bring about a peaceful end to the war.

The problem is that since then there have been more than 100,000 deaths and more than 2 million people have migrated away from the chaos. There has been one public use of chemical weapons, and it has been suggested that there have been others. We have all had to endure some pretty appalling footage of death and destruction, primarily affecting innocent civilians—women and children. It is pretty shocking to have to endure it.

Our response should be multi-pronged. We could foresee a situation in which hard power is wielded, but soft power should also be considered. This is where I come to the MASH or mobile surgical hospital facility that I envisage for Britain. The history of field hospitals goes back to the Napoleonic wars and the gentleman called the father of combat medicine, Baron Dominique Jean Larrey. From that concept of forward surgical hospitals bringing medical support to combatants at the front line, things developed slowly. I guess that the fastest development took place during the Korean war in the early 1950s; the “MASH” TV series is based on that war, although it was always associated with the Vietnam war because of when it was made. During the Korean war, major developments were made in pushing field hospitals closer to the front line. There was the famous image of a Bell helicopter with two casualties strapped into stretchers on either side, with the purpose of bringing people back to be treated very quickly. The dictum was, “Life takes precedence over limb, function over anatomical defects.”

Since then, there have been massive advances. I have not yet visited the hospital at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan, but I am told that it is a remarkable facility delivering the very best trauma care. Of particular note to Britain is our experience in Kosovo in 1999, where the British Army managed to create, in effect, a tented village for a load of refugees as well as medical facilities. It was a fantastic success, and proof of what our military are capable of.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this innovative idea to the House for consideration. I have a Territorial Army ambulance unit in my constituency and they are renowned for the good work that they have done and can do. Does he see the MASH unit being staffed by regular soldiers or TA soldiers, because I believe that both could do the job equally well?

[Dr Lee]

I was going to come to that. I see it as being a reserve force, not part of the regular Army, although I suspect that there will be some logistics staff maintaining the kit and the facility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lee]

Yes, I was going to come to that. There should be a DFID-funded capability.

The capability needs to be constructive. A friend of mine has talked about having blue overalls, not blue helmets. In other words, we have a United Nations force with blue helmets, so why do we not have a force of people in blue overalls? Our intervention should not necessarily be military in appearance—we can also intervene in other ways. The capability should be resourceful. We are good at this stuff. We can draw on our experiences in the Balkans and the Falklands—I mentioned Rick Jolly’s field hospital—and prior to that. We are very good at this; we have the clinical expertise, in particular. The capability should be able to be expeditionary—that is, to go abroad. In the case of Syria, I foresee a situation where it could be located in a friendly country such as Jordan. It should also have a domestic application. God forbid that there is ever a chemical attack in this country, but the facility could also be deployed here.

The core goal should be to try to develop a stable world that we all appreciate, and that can be brought about by making friends and influencing people. The Arab street is not necessarily with the British or the Americans. We need to persuade civilians on the ground that we do not always have a malign, vested interest—a sense that we are just doing it for ourselves—in our approach to the middle east, but that we are there to do constructive and good things and to genuinely help people.

Turning to details and capacity, as a result of the conversations I have had I envisage a facility with at least 50 beds, perhaps more. If it is as successful as I think it will be I suspect we will extend it, but 50 beds is a good starting point. I think it should include a CT scanner, which is often not available in more rural areas and far-flung destinations. It is possible to put CT scanners in containers and companies such as Marshall Land Systems in Cambridge make container hospitals. There is no reason why we cannot do this. We need to consider whether the facility should also have paediatric and obstetric services, because it is not just soldiers such as those in the “MASH” television series who will be coming in, but children who have been affected by a neurological agent—such as those we saw in that dreadful footage—and pregnant women who have sustained injuries.

Cost is always relevant when it comes to Government spending and there are some figures available. Apparently the Finns purchased a hospital for deployment for about £5 million. I envisage that my proposal will probably cost between £5 million and £10 million. I think it should be a military asset, because the military is best placed to run it, but it should be staffed primarily with reservists, not regulars. Military logistics are important: the army are the best people to get this facility quickly into the field, and Kosovo is an example of that. The army’s command and control systems are relevant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has rightly referred to the facility’s security, which is of paramount importance. I think it would be a target. The facility would focus on hearts and minds and on delivering care on the ground, and if I were an Islamist jihadist I would think, “We need to knock that out, because it’s going to start changing minds and attitudes.” The facility’s security would need some thought. For example, RAF Akrotiri is stationed close to Syria and the deployment of troops may need to be considered in exceptional circumstances.

Clarity of funding is clearly important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) has said. The politics of international aid are tough on the doorsteps of Bracknell—trust me: I experience it quite often. This proposal would be one way of using DFID funds for something that is demonstrably humanitarian and of leveraging in some funds to a defence asset that would be used primarily for humanitarian purposes, but—this would always be at the back of my mind—that could also be deployed if we ever go to war.

[Jim Shannon]

We are discussing examples of armed conflict in places such as Syria and Kosovo. Does the hon. Gentleman also see this MASH unit playing a role in responding to humanitarian crises or disasters?

[Dr Lee]

Yes, I do. In fact, the last American MASH unit was deployed in response to the 2006 earthquake in Pakistan and it was then given to the Pakistanis. I would hope that the facility would be used less for military purposes. There are likely to be future crises and I think it should be used in response to them.

Microgravity Research

Debate between Phillip Lee and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

This is a rather esoteric subject on the face of it, so I should like to explain why I have chosen it. I am vice-chairman of the parliamentary space committee, and as a consequence of that role I have come into contact with many people in the space industry who have spoken to me about microgravity, the research thereof and its potential value to the British economy. I do not have any direct constituency link, although I have a local company that provides equipment for satellites. In the past decade, the UK space industry has been growing, year on year, at a rate in excess of 10%. I genuinely think that it should be part of the Government’s growth strategy and that it would contribute to the diversification of this country’s economic base. I have had the particular pleasure of meeting Tim Peake, who is the only British astronaut on the European Space Agency manned programme, and who also happens to be a champion of microgravity. That is quite important, because it indicates how good we are in Britain at research in this area.

Why have microgravity research? First, as I said, the UK is very strong in that area. Microgravity crosses a large number of fields, and that may contribute to why it has not always received support from the research councils. Secondly, it has huge potential economic benefits, particularly in bio-medicine. Thirdly, I do not think I am alone in this House in thinking that we should have a manned space flight programme. We need to do that with partners—perhaps with Europe, Russia or the United States—but I genuinely believe that we are better off seeking out new knowledge, endeavour and aspiration. All those things are positives, and Britain was at its best when it was displaying those facets.

Let me explain the structure of my speech. First, I will explain microgravity. I am sure that all colleagues here understand it fully and do not need a definition, but I will provide it for the benefit of the many people who have tuned into BBC Parliament for this debate. I will then touch on the sectors that microgravity research can impact on; talk about the history of the involvement in microgravity research, or the lack thereof, of Governments, this one and previous; and put some questions to the Minister.

As life evolved on this earth, lots of physical and chemical change took place in the environment that caused adaptations to take place in life, be it plant or animal. The only thing that has been constant in 4.8 billion years is gravity. It is therefore thought that organisms now have little or no genetic memory of how they would respond to low gravity, and that the low-gravity environment could uncover some novel mechanisms and responses to adaptations that may benefit the economy through commercial applications. That is basically why researchers are so eager to get into space, so to speak, to test the impact of microgravity.

This definition is just one of many I have read:

“Microgravity research = the research into the impact of low or zero gravity on human health and on other materials, and the exploitation of the low gravity environment to conduct research into pure science and human applications.”

We can create such low gravity here on earth in drop towers—something like those found at Alton Towers—or through parabolic flights. However, the best place for it to happen is in space. It can be done by a sounding rocket; at the moment, it is done at the international space station. Why conduct the research? Put simply, gravity adds complexity to certain experiments by contributing to convection currents, shear stresses and buoyancy, and that can impact on processes that we would like to study. In order to try to remove those potentially confounding variables from the experiment, one needs to go into a microgravity environment, and the best place for that is in space.

Let me turn to the sectors that may be impacted on, both economically and in terms of human knowledge and pushing back these boundaries. First, I will mention bio-medicine; as a doctor, I would be expected to do so. The bio-medical applications are numerous. Essentially, it is thought that putting cells—any cells—into a microgravity environment affects the way in which they work. Understanding how cells work and how they communicate with one another will have broad applications in the study of cancer, coronary heart disease, AIDS and diabetes. We can all understand that that might lead to the development of new therapies and drugs that would benefit mankind. In economic terms, if British patents were attached to such developments, UK plc would benefit.

One can also grow pure protein crystals in microgravity, and by doing so aid the understanding of the immune system, which would again benefit health care. One of the most noted areas is musculoskeletal systems and the response of bone and muscle. I am sure that most hon. Members know that spacemen who have spent lots of time in space have been found to have reduced bone density and muscle wastage. Why that happens is not fully understood. By trying to understanding that and how tissue remodels, we may very well find new techniques to treat musculoskeletal disorders.

Another sector where microgravity can be used is fluid physics. The understanding of the forces that affect fluids has wide applications. If we can understand them better, it might contribute to the miniaturisation of electronic devices. The BlackBerrys and laptops that we use have all benefited from greater knowledge in this area. Using these developments will undeniably lead to a reduction in costs for the customer when they buy such electronic devices at John Lewis and elsewhere.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am not an expert in microgravity research—far from it—but I had a wee look at it before the debate. I understand that some microgravity research has looked at earthquakes and the pre-warning of earthquakes. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would comment on that, because obviously if people can be warned of earthquakes and tremors, it might save life.

[Dr Lee]

I have absolutely no idea about the prediction of earthquakes and I am struggling to think why an understanding of microgravity would help to determine when there might be an earthquake. The hon. Gentleman has given me something to look up when I leave the Chamber.

The final area is material science. Understanding how materials or composite materials behave in a microgravity environment might help to develop new alloys and ceramics. That has broad applications. We are at the cutting edge in Formula 1 and in the use of composite materials and alloys. That knowledge originally came from the space sector. By doing this research we will enhance our standing in that area.

This list is not exhaustive. A variety of different sectors are involved. In the area of plant biology, I have seen the suggestion that plant stem cells could be grown on an industrial scale in space, thereby assisting us in our need to develop biomass for energy. I could go on.

Moving on to the history of Government involvement in microgravity, the Pippard report of 1989 was the first mention that I could find. It made some interesting observations that have since proven to be true. The Wakeham review of 2003 found a lack of interest among the research councils, which goes back to the point I made at the start of my remarks that microgravity does not have a single voice. That is why it has not received funding in the past. As a result of the Wakeham review, Britain did not contribute to the European Programme for Life and Physical Sciences—ELIPS—with the European Space Agency, which was started in 2001 and is ongoing. The ELIPS 4 funding round is due at the next ministerial ESA meeting in 2012. I would push for us to participate in that, not least because doing so would allow us to work with NASA, which will not work with us outside ESA as I understand it.

Finally, I have some questions for the Minister. First, will he confirm that the Government are not against manned space flight? For some time in this country, it was Government policy to be against manned space flight. I think that manned space flight is inspirational. Anybody who goes into a school on a science, technology, engineering and mathematics day will find children building rockets and looking at pictures of planets. The reality is that space inspires children and that we will need more scientists and engineers in the future. I spoke about the inspirational quality of space in my maiden speech—I do not know how many hon. Members who are present were here for that. I strongly believe that there has to be a man on top of the rocket for it to be inspiring.

Secondly, will the Minister outline the Government’s position on the ELIPS programme and the ESA manned space flight programme in anticipation of the 2012 ministerial meeting? I ask that because for about £200 million a year we could participate in that programme. Over a 20 to 25-year period, we could perhaps participate in the exploration of the moon and, further, of Mars. That may seem an extravagance to some, but it is not. For every $1 spent on the Apollo space programme, it was estimated that the US economy got $14 in return.

We can make money out of space—it is as simple as that. Britain is outstanding at space, and we do it on a shoestring in comparison with some of our competitors. I think that in future, we should be a greater player in space. I know that the Minister shares my feelings on that. I forget the figures, but we are projected to increase our space industry over the next 10 years, and I am wholly supportive of that.

What is the Minister’s opinion on a microgravity forum? I have had e-mails from around the world since I tweeted that I would introduce this debate, and I have met people, and it is interesting that there is not one, single voice for microgravity. Microgravity perhaps needs that one voice, but does the Minister have any views on that?

Finally, more generally, as a new boy in town, I get the distinct impression that Whitehall is risk averse. If there is one thing that we cannot be when it comes to space, it is that. We have to go for it. I am encouraged that the Government have in the last year announced changes to legislation with regard to aiding the space industry—it relates to space insurance—but ultimately, Whitehall remains risk averse. I would be interested to know the Minister’s view on that.

The best way to conclude is by quoting an e-mail that somebody sent. He ended one paragraphs as follows:

“In addition to providing benefits to society”

microgravity

“research will also help the UK to maintain some degree of scientific relevance - scientific capability in a nation is a recognised necessity for economic development.”

I could not have put it better myself, and that is why I called for this debate.