David Morris: How ARIA can help launch the British space industry into orbit

22 Apr

David Morris is Member of Parliament for Morecambe and Lunesdale.

In October 1957, Dwight Eisenhower sat stony-faced as he watched Soviet news reports announcing the triumphant launch into orbit of the world’s first satellite, Sputnik 1. Russia had astonished the world and gained a new strategic advantage.

Within weeks, Eisenhower had authorised the creation of a new agency – the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) – to execute research projects to expand the frontiers of technology and science. “From that time forward”, the Agency states, “the United States would be the initiator and not the victim of strategic technological surprises.”

A few weeks’ ago, in the midst of a different kind of war – this time against a global pandemic rather than a Cold War adversary – the Government announced the launch of the UK’s equivalent organisation: the Advanced Research & Invention Agency (ARIA). A new research body to fund high-risk, high-reward scientific research, ARIA will seek to emulate its US forerunner, which provided the breakthroughs that led to the Internet, GPS and automated voice recognition.

Free from Government meddling and bureaucracy, and with a war chest of £800 million, ARIA will be able to call its own shots and take big bets.

If the Government gets it right, ARIA’s impact could be profound. Not just because it has money to invest, but for three big and much broader reasons: the UK is home to tech-driven industries ideally positioned for ARIA’s involvement; ARIA can help disrupt economic sectors that need shaking up; and because ARIA’s approach can be a beacon for the sort of regulatory environment that will enable the economy to flourish now that we have left the EU.

Just like its US forbear in 1957, ARIA should lift its eyes upwards – to space.

Largely hidden from the headlines, the UK has seen the steady and extraordinary development of a world-leading space industry. Trebling in size since 2010, the economic output for space in the UK is now estimated to be £300 billion, employing 40,000 people across the nation in high-skilled jobs. More satellites are manufactured in Glasgow than anywhere else in the world outside California. Indeed, 40 per cent of the small satellites in orbit are made in the UK.

Our space industry has become the crucible for technological innovation in Britain. Companies in the sector are racing towards creating the technology to launch satellites from British soil, inventing eco-efficient fuels, and developing ways to remove space junk. The UK now has the ecosystem that can drive exponential growth in the sector. We have the universities, deep expertise in AI and data, the manufacturing base, and highly innovative businesses. Once we have our sovereign launch capability, connecting the UK to near-earth orbit, the final piece of infrastructure will be in place.

So it’s the ideal time for ARIA to come into the market and further power its growth and utility. Our space industry could lead the world in “environmental space” – involving the sustainability of space, sustainability in space and, most critically of all, the sustainability of Earth from space. Thirteen of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, including 75 targets and 61 indicators, require the involvement of space. In the year of COP26, the UK should open up space as a new front in our mission to tackle climate change.

ARIA’s impact will only be truly transformative, however, if it succeeds in working with the smaller companies pushing the boundaries of innovation. Again, look across the water to ARIA’s longer-established cousin in the US, now called the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). In December 2018, DARPA challenged the US space industry to scrap the need for cumbersome and expensive launch infrastructure (think of the huge scaffolding at Cape Canaveral) and develop ways to launch small satellites quickly and cheaply. Within two years, a Californian launch vehicle company, ASTRA, had outsmarted bigger rivals and successfully launched into space from Alaska.

Britain has over 1,000 companies in what’s called “new space” – the term given to the innovators and entrepreneurs whose use of technology has expanded the market so dramatically from what was originally a collection of big aerospace firms. These are the companies, whose success will define the UK’s future economy, that can really benefit from ARIA’s encouragement and involvement. As we have learned from other sectors with big established players, markets need stimulation and disruption to be truly dynamic. It’s exactly what ARIA should be doing.

Finally, ARIA can help influence the regulatory environment in which it operates. Again, looking at the British space sector, regulating authorities are struggling to make decisions at anything like the speed that companies are pursuing their technological advancements. As a result, the pace of progress is being held back, just when it should be accelerating.

The Government is trying to address these issues through initiatives like the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform (TIGGR), but ARIA can play its part too, acting as an exemplar intelligent regulation, showcasing how business and government can be highly aligned. Our Space sector badly needs this right now.

As the legislation to establish ARIA works its way through Parliament, it’s the right time to consider how the new agency can pursue a new age of technological discovery. There is little doubt in my mind that space is where its potency will be greatest. ARIA needs the British space industry to show just what it can do – but don’t forget that our space sector badly needs ARIA too.

David Morris: The Government’s OneWeb investment will give the UK a greater stake in the space industry’s future

23 Nov

David Morris is Member of Parliament for Morecambe and Lunesdale.

In March, as Covid struck, OneWeb, a UK-based, Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellite system, found itself plunged into financial difficulties. Its backer, SoftBank, withdrew $2 billion of funding from the enterprise. The result, as many feared, was collapse and a retreat into US Chapter 11 protection.

But crisis soon turned into opportunity. With 74 satellites in space, and having secured valuable global spectrum priority and orbital rights, OneWeb was eyed by US, Canadian, European and Chinese buyers. Would the UK step up? It had been ejected from Galileo post-Brexit and risked being shut out from shaping the LEO satellite future if the Europeans stepped in. Europe wanted its own LEO and here was its chance.

The UK Space Agency was as lukewarm as a lost pizza in lockdown. It briefed and wrote letters disavowing the benefits of investing in OneWeb. But behind the scenes a wider assembly, including the Parliamentary Space Group, could see the bigger picture and the decades-long opportunity of owning a slice of space. In spite of the horrors of Covid, the challenge of budgets hit by £30 billion in bounce-back loans and the pressures of a national furlough, this Government found the courage and vision to look to the post-Brexit future. 

The Treasury and others analysed and looked beyond short-termist naysayers. The Prime Minister took critical interest in how this addition to the UK Space industry could help unite our kingdom. Advisers recognised that in our connected future, for societal resilience, we needed to control our access to space.

At home we could connect the unconnected, add resilience to networks, back-up transport links, plan for the driverless car and level-up digital access across the UK. We could put connectivity where it’s needed – not just in our cities – as well as ensuring that subsequent generations of LEO Satellites are built here. Providing tech innovation is a good reason for post-grad young scientists to stay, and it allows universities to develop and experiment.

Most importantly, the UK would have a powerful satellite platform to share with our allies and friends post-Brexit – to balance US, Chinese and Russian systems.

The successful bid for OneWeb, in partnership with Bharti Global, operators of the massively successful Airtel Mobile network, will see each party inject $500 million into the venture for an 84.4 per cent share in the company. India is a leading space nation and we are delighted to work alongside such gifted friends. We are building a new future together.

The next launch will be in December and 36 satellites have been built and are ready to go. In just six months, after five launches, the UK and much of the Northern Hemisphere will have satellite service available.

By the close of 2022, OneWeb will span the globe, headquartered in the UK and serving society on land, sea and air. Work will be underway on a LEO resilient back-up to GPS satellites, called PNT (Position, Navigation, Timing) – saving the £5 billion previously sought by industry to build a Galileo rival, just as its resilience is compromised.

This project brings the Conservatives much closer to their vision of levelling-up – from the Heavens – and with success, a sky-high valuation will deliver for the UK taxpayer.

David Morris: Asbestos continues to be a danger in workplaces – and it’s teachers who are at increased risk

24 Jul

David Morris is Member of Parliament for Morecambe and Lunesdale.

Asbestos is the nation’s number one occupational killer. Over twenty years after the use of this deadly substance was banned, it is still causing more than 5,500 deaths a year.

Most deaths occur among those who formerly worked with asbestos, before the ban in 1999, and those who still come into contact with it, namely workers in building trades such as plumbers-heating engineers, and electricians. Yet, there is a new demographic that lives and works at increased risk.

Eighty per cent of British schools contain asbestos. As a result, there is a worrying increase in death rates among teachers, a profession not traditionally linked to working with the deadly material.

The think tank ResPublica draws attention to this in its campaign Airtight on Asbestos, which shows that teachers are five times more likely than average to develop mesothelioma, the disease most closely linked to asbestos inhalation. Since 1980, there have been almost 300 recorded deaths from mesothelioma among teachers in the UK. Of that total, 177 have occurred since 2001.

The current policy in relation to monitoring the material in schools is confined to its management in-situ. This means monitoring and controlling for the condition in which asbestos is kept and maintained over time.

However, air monitoring is not a routine activity. It is only undertaken where asbestos is being removed or treated. Even in these circumstances monitoring cannot provide assurance of a “safe” level for everyday use in these buildings. Unlike France and Germany, the UK does not have a legislated “environmental limit” for the amount of asbestos fibres that can be permitted in a school or any other building.

The UK’s current regime allows a “clearance level” of airborne asbestos of 0.01 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.01 f/cm3) on completion of asbestos remediation. This is five times greater than the “environmental limit” allowed in France (0.005 f/cm3) and ten times greater than the acceptable “occupational exposure limit” in Germany (0.001 f/cm3).

So the UK’s standards for monitoring airborne asbestos fibres in schools are well behind those of other countries. To make matters worse, the data which spells out the correct safety limits of airborne fibres continues to be ignored. According to research (Hodgson and Darnton, 2000) asbestos fibre levels for children in schools should not exceed 0.0001 f/cm3. Yet we do nothing in the UK to assure either teachers or parents that this limit is adhered to.

There is, in the UK, a lack of awareness, or interest in the scientific evidence for other microscopy regimes. The HSE is duty bound to adopt best practice, under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, but have refused to acknowledge that there are proven alternatives because they do not accept that we may have an ongoing problem with exposure to unsafe levels of asbestos.

These observations raise serious questions about what the UK considers proper health and safety in its schools, compared to other developed European nations. By continuing on our current path, we are risking the lives of all those who enter school buildings.

It is worth pausing to reflect on the analysis of one US study, which found that for every teacher who dies from mesothelioma at work, nine pupils can be expected to develop the fatal disease.

The UK’s health and safety regime starts with the presumption that the management of asbestos in-situ is safe, with minimum disturbance, and a remote risk of exposure.

This is not plausible given the amount of asbestos that remains in our school buildings. Other countries with national asbestos plans, enhanced testing, and phased removal targets accept that asbestos in-situ is deteriorating and will release fibres. So why does the UK assume that all asbestos in-situ is safe?

Other European nations have clearly introduced higher standards for asbestos air monitoring, despite having far lower death rates from asbestos-related diseases. Yet the UK remains blind to this best practice and blind to what fibres it can see in the atmosphere.

We have a particular duty to use best practices of air monitoring to determine whether certain schools in this country should remain standing. Our asbestos laden CLASP schools, for example, have been in use since the 1950s and are long past their sell-by-date. Shamefully, many of them will open their doors once more to children and teachers once term time commences.

Adopting the best practices for air monitoring would allow us to identify the worst levels of exposure in any given school building, which could then spur an evidence-led programme of removal to ensure they no longer pose a major health risk to staff and pupils.

Ultimately, such measures will lead to fewer teachers and school children dying prematurely. We must realise how far behind we are in these basic procedures, and what it is doing to such an essential arm of the public sector.

If nothing else, we must learn the right lessons from the past four months. We can no longer afford to ignore hard evidence, nor take for granted those who stand to lose the most from such oversight.