FST JOURNAL

On Wednesday 29^th April, The Foundation for Science and Technology hosted a meeting to review the 16-year history, current state, and future of UK space policy following the decision to abolish the UK Space Agency as an arms-length body and absorb it into the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). Chaired by the Rt hon the Lord David Willetts, the event brought together key figures from the agency's history to debate the strategic implications of this structural shift, the balance between civil and defence space coordination, international partnerships (such as ESA and NASA), and how to effectively commercialise the UK’s strong academic and industrial talent.

Speakers

• David Willetts (Chair): Chair of the Foundation for Science and Technology and former Chair of the UK Space Agency.
• Paul, Lord Drayson: Former Minister for Science who led the creation of the UK Space Agency.
• Alice Bunn: Chair of UK Space (representing British business interests) and former senior adviser to the World Economic Forum.
• Dr. Paul Bate: Final outgoing Chief Executive of the arm's-length UK Space Agency.
• Dr. Professor David Parker: Former Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency and former Director of Human and Robotic Exploration at the European Space Agency (ESA).

The Lord David Willetts (FST Chair) opened the evening by recalling how he inherited the newly created ‘arms- length’ body: the UK Space Agency in 2010 from Paul Drayson and choosing to implement and strengthen it over a four-year ministerial tenure. He noted that by the time the arms-length model ended, excessive bureaucracy had developed, with roughly 70 policy officials in DSIT constantly negotiating with the operational agency. He argued that a single integrated entity within DSIT is superior to a forced distinction between "policy" and "operations".

After thanking Lord Willetts for his words, the Lord Paul Drayson began discussions with a strong criticism of the government's decision to close the UK Space Agency and fold it into DSIT, labelling it a "plain wrong" strategic error. He recalled that the agency was originally founded in response to a 2007 Royal Society call for a "one-stop shop" to replace the British National Space Centre (BNSC). He said that the historical success of the agency relied on its arm's-length status, which protected its budget from short-term political cycles, gave it peer status to negotiate effectively with the ESA, and allowed it to chase clear, industry-backed targets.

Drayson warned that merging the agency back into a Whitehall department of civil service generalists will dilute technical expertise and leave the space budget vulnerable to raiding by shifting political priorities like AI compute.

Given that space is now recognised as a critical operational domain by NATO and holds immense economic value, Drayson believes this is the wrong moment to demote the agency. He quoted that 18% of current UK GDP (around 454 billion) depends on satellite services. He also said that ‘in an age when we cannot rely on US space assets, sovereignty means more, not less.’ He urged the space community to build a unified evidence base, monitor metrics like staff retention and procurement velocity, push for a joint civil-defence minister for space, and make the case that space is critical national infrastructure, not a digressionary budget line.

The next panellist, Alice Bunn politely disagreed with Lord Drayson and make the case for a cohesive "national space enterprise" tightly coordinating academia, industry, and government.

Reflecting on the past, she noted that programmes like the Mosaic small satellite initiative succeeded because the community chose priorities and backed winners across civil and defence lines. She said that it was ‘truly a joined-up partnership’.

Bunn highlighted procurement and ‘financed scaling’ as a historical failure in pooling requirements for space data and services. She said that the UK has never effectively joined up the downstream use of space data and services at pace or scale. She emphasised that the industry does not need the government to buy everything but rather act as a credible "anchor tenant" to help companies leverage private finance.

There remains a remarkable amount of geopolitical uncertainty. For this reason, Bunn said that we ‘need to bring our own ball… one that can withstand the geopolitical storms’. She emphasised that international competitors like Germany are heavily outspending the UK, meaning the British sector must be smarter and bolder rather than relying on empty "global leadership" rhetoric. The UK should make decadal commitments to areas of true capability, like space weather for example. Addressing the reality of dual-use technology, Bunn noted that capabilities used for civil monitoring (like wildfire detection) are identical to those used in warfare. She said that we need R&D Programmes at scale. In terms of procurement, she argued that the UK must pool its requirements and show up as a credible tenant for industry so that it can leverage the finance from the right places. Ultimately, Bunn advocated for a cultural shift toward making difficult prioritisation choices and maintaining decadal funding commitments to withstand geopolitical shifts.

The Outgoing Chief Executive of the UK Space Agency (UKSA) former Director of Human and Robotic Exploration at the European Space Agency (ESA), Dr Paul Bate followed next and used a NASA cosmic web simulation as a metaphor to argue that space policy is an interconnected web binding discovery science, commercialisation, civil space, and military applications together. He cautioned that if governments take a simplistic shortcut and only fund things closest to short-term economic growth or national security, they risk breaking vital components of the sector.

Bate called for protecting the "anchor points" of the web: the research base that drives long-term innovation and the diverse pool of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). He noted that to drive actual scaling, the government cannot support all 1,900+ space organisations equally. Instead, it must pick a targeted portfolio of companies with built-in scalable business models and support them holistically through Research and Development grants, government contracts, and balance sheet investments.

Bate advocated for the UK to carve out global niches, such as leading international policy and technical standards on space sustainability and orbital debris mitigation. Whilst emphasising the UK’s leadership in space sustainability, Bate cited the Inter-Agency Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) and shared a stark data point regarding atmospheric ablation: a single de-orbited satellite can deposit metal oxides into the atmosphere equivalent to 250,000 cars' worth of annual emissions.

He said that we need to move further forward on valuing our bi lateral missions (the global missions we are part of) and see these as strengths. Bate highlighted the importance of global relationships—particularly with ESA and NASA. It is ‘deeply important’ he said to be ‘decadal’ if we want to foster those international relationships. The space web is global, so as well as setting out our niches, we need to play well internationally.

Professor David Parker took to the stage last. He provided a historical perspective, reflecting on the structural success of the old British National Space Centre (BNSC), which featured a mandatory Ministry of Defence (MOD) second-in-command to ensure tight civil-military dual-use coordination—a connection that was later severely weakened. Parker emphasised that steadiness of purpose and direction are critical for long-term space policy. He tracked the evolution of UK capabilities from early satellite successes down to industry consolidation that diluted sovereign industrial powers.

Parker highlighted that the UK's 25% funding increase to ESA in 2012 triggered a wave of inward investment. Disagreeing slightly with Lord Drayson, he noted that international treaties—rather than an arms-length structure—are what truly guarantee long-term funding for deep tech by making the costs of Treasury-driven political withdrawal too high.

Parker also classified the UK's current status as just below Italy in the "first division" of global space powers (behind the US and China). He stressed the importance of moving US-style policy forward via discrete, single announcements rather than trying to slow-cook everything into massive, delayed strategy documents.

Looking to the future, Parker warned that the global landscape had shifted away from international cooperation toward fierce national competition and de facto commercial monopolies. He outlines a 10-point to-do list, which includes appointing a national space policy advisor within the Cabinet Office to ensure cooperation across warring departments. He also suggested that the UK should take discrete, incremental policy actions rather than trying to fit everything into a singular, slow-moving strategy document.

Closing the panel discussion with ‘Chair’s remarks’, Lord David Willetts weaved in some historical context and personal reflections. He noted the political irony of his own career: having spent over four years as Science Minister loyally implementing a previous Labour government’s plan to create and strengthen the UK Space Agency, only to end his time as its Chair executing a new Labour government’s plan to abolish it as an arm's-length body.

Willetts admitted that the agency had developed a recipe for excess bureaucracy, pointing out that by the time it was integrated into DSIT, there were roughly 70 policy officials inside the department in a permanent state of negotiation with the operational agency. Because the distinction between "policy" and "operation" breaks down in a high-tech environment like space, Willetts expresses optimism for a single entity inside DSIT. He also emphasised that international treaties and partnerships are an excellent way to secure long-term deep-tech funding.

Watch the entire event again, including the Q&A that followed, here.