Written evidence submitted by Professor Sir Peter Knight (QUT0015)
I am submitting this as an individual and these are my personal views, although I have been intimately involved in the UK National Quantum Technology Programme from the outset. I am a member of the UK National Quantum Technology Programme Strategic Advisory Board, Interim Challenge Director for the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund Quantum Technology Pioneer Challenge that has just launched, and I chair the National Physical Laboratory Quantum Metrology Institute. I was the lead author with Sir Mark Walport of the Government Office of Science Blackett Report on Quantum Technology in 2016 (The Quantum Age Blackett Review, Government Office of Science, Nov 2016). Finally I have spent the past 45 years as a researcher in this area, in the UK as well as in the USA.
The UK National Quantum Technology Programme has delivered world-leading capability, capitalising on our research strengths, industry and government department engagement. Our coherent management strategy has ensured we are at the fore in a world-wide race, with a need for sustained investment to secure our lead. This race is on, and we need to reap the rewards of our past investment and the talent pool now committed to making this a success.
My key messages are:
Over the last 5 years, we have seen the start of a global race between all major industrialised nations, and thanks to the launch of the National Quantum Technology Programme (UK-NQTP) in 2013, the UK is currently at the forefront of this revolution. With an initial investment of £270 million, the UK-NQTP established four Quantum Technology Hubs, involving 27 universities and 55 companies who are privately investing, and 170 companies who are partners of one or more quantum technology Hubs. At the same time, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) secured £36 million from the MOD to develop quantum technologies, in projects designed to be complementary to the UK-NQTP. With additional commitment, the Training and Skills Hubs were established to develop the next generation of quantum engineers and entrepreneurs. Further investments in Fellowships, capital equipment, and joint academic/industry projects have resulted in a coordinated national effort combining universities, industry, NPL, EPSRC, MOD, GCHQ, Innovate UK and BEIS.
In summary, the first phase was designed to turn the science into technology and put the UK on the path to having a leading quantum technology industry. This it has done and the total phase 1 investment by all partners now exceeds £400 million.
In what follows, I address the specific questions set out by the Select Committee
• Q1: The progress that has been made on the recommendations in the Government Office for Science’s 2016 report;
The recommendations (and my view of progress made since then) are as follows:
The Government Office of Science Blackett Review put forward 11 recommendations, which are listed below; progress has already been made in addressing all of them.
Recommendation 1: There is a strong case for continuing the UK National Quantum Technologies Programme to maintain our world leading position in a promising, and now globally emerging area of technology. There should be matched private-sector investment in any future phase, to increase the level of industry commitment to the programme, and to accelerate the process of commercialisation.
I can hardly disagree!
Recommendation 2: Cabinet Office and the Government Office of Science should review the critical services dependent on GNSS timing signals and mitigate the risks by analysing how long they should be capable of operating with back-up or holdover technology.
Such a review was undertaken (I was a member of the team) and a follow-up Blackett Report published by the Government Office of Science, on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). The report was written by an expert panel at the request of the former Chief Scientific Adviser Mark Walport. GO-Science highlighted that GNSS and the services it provides are near ubiquitous and integral to future technologies such as 5G, Internet of things and future air travel. The Review focused on two key issues: a lack of awareness of critical sectors’ dependence upon GNSS, and the increased vulnerability of GNSS to interference. Due to the emergence of a system of systems, GNSS represented a single point of failure that could have a significant impact on the UK economy. A Blackett Review Implementation Group (BRIG) has been set up by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat of the Cabinet Office to oversee implementation of the recommendations.
Recommendation 3: The National Physical Laboratory and the National Cyber Security Centre should support the development of standards for GNSS-resilient timing infrastructure working with industry, the research community and the relevant standards bodies where appropriate. They should also support the drive for the harmonisation of standards internationally, recognising that in the case of clocks, the applications landscape is complex and involves a number of different standards bodies.
Work to address this recommendation is underway with the various key partners.
Recommendation 4: The National Physical Laboratory and the Quantum Communications Hub, working with existing infrastructure organisations, should explore the feasibility of a fully optical fibre network for the purposes of time and frequency distribution, as well as a test bed for technology demonstrator experiments. This might start as a city-wide demonstrator project and later expand to key locations around the UK.
Work is underway with significant support from BT.
Recommendation 5: Regulation should not present a barrier to the use, deployment and commercialisation of quantum technologies. The National Programme should ensure regulators and standards bodies are aware of the capabilities of the technologies under development, so that regulations are formulated to realise the full potential of these technologies. Test-beds and road-mapping should be considered as a route to development of the regulations by government.
Underway. An informal international working group is being set up with participation from leading National Measurement Institutes including NPL.
Recommendation 6: The National Quantum Technologies Programme should work with the Alan Turing Institute, the Heilbronn Institute for Mathematical Research and wider academia to identify a set of example challenges which, if solved by a quantum computer or quantum simulator, would have important benefits to government, business and citizens. These challenges would involve algorithm research related to areas such as machine learning, artificial intelligence and the investigation of pharmaceutical drugs and new materials. Government could act as a demonstration client for some of these challenges.
Advances in information and energy technology owe their existence to breakthroughs in fundamental research in Quantum Materials: for example, the discovery of the transistor, giant magneto resistance or high temperature superconductors. There are currently enormous efforts to develop machine learning algorithms, new data mining tools, and even direct quantum simulators for predicting novel quantum materials. Microsoft, for instance, is keen in developing quantum simulation for quantum chemistry or more concretely the simulation of larger molecules to better understand catalysts for the more efficient synthesis of artificial soil as an example. IT giants are also investigating quantum assisted machine learning to speed up the learning process. In order to optimise connectivity between quantum nodes, algorithms and theories are developed for the quantum internet. Within the UK, Edinburgh, Oxford, Bristol, York and Imperial have research efforts in developing quantum algorithms, simulation of quantum materials and chemical reactions and quantum internet theories. NQIT, the NQTP Hub in this area with their HQ in Oxford has restructured its application work packages (WP) to address the need to identify challenges that would be met by quantum computers or simulators. They have set up a new WP on Quantum Machine Learning and a new emulator facility and programme (together with software engineers) that will convene user groups across sectors (quantum chemistry, logistics, materials etc.) that will use this capability to design and run algorithms that will outperform conventional approaches.
Recommendation 7: The National Quantum Technologies Programme should fund collaborative work between UK quantum communications and cryptography research groups, leading to joint technical developments of both quantum key distribution (QKD) and post-quantum cryptography (PQC), as well as work on digital signatures and other uses of these technologies.
Post-quantum cryptography refers to classical cryptographic protocols that are believed to be resilient to quantum computing attacks. Current public-key cryptosystems based on integer factorization and discrete logarithm will be vulnerable to attackers using quantum computers running Shor's algorithm. For this reason, post-quantum cryptography has gained great attention throughout the world. Our best estimate is that we have of order 10 years to replace current Public Key Cryptography that underpins the security of the internet with resilient alternatives. This affects all elements of life in the UK and can hardly be exaggerated. National and international organizations such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are in the process of standardizing encryption protocols of post-quantum cryptography. Promising methods include those based on lattices, codes and hash functions. In the UK, post-quantum cryptography is an underdeveloped area, although there are research activities going on in Royal Holloway, Bristol, Belfast and Imperial College. There is a clear need and opportunity to strengthen UK capacity in this area. Meanwhile, the security of post-quantum cryptography is far less understood than that of conventional cryptography. An improved understanding of the impact of quantum computing algorithms on post-quantum cryptography is needed and will be investigated as an integral part of future activity of the UKNQTP.
Recommendation 8: The National Cyber Security centre should support a pilot trial of QKD using realistic data in a realistic environment, with the facilities for the trial being provided by the Quantum Communications Hub. Such a trial should serve to stimulate the supply chain and show UK leadership in secure communications.
Work in this area is currently underway led by the Quantum Communication Hub, with active collaboration with NPL and BT. NCSC is engaged and taking at present a watching brief. More needs to be done in phase 2 of the NQTP.
Recommendation 9: The National Physical Laboratory, the National Cyber Security Centre and academia should form a partnership to perform conformance tests and issue accreditation certificates. This process would need to involve engagement with other interested parties from industry, such as the communications and financial services sectors, and could lead to the establishment of an independent national facility.
Work in this area has started, with activity on vulnerability work, in collaboration with other parties interested in appropriate standards.
Recommendation 10: The UK, through a competitive process over seen by the National Quantum Technologies Programme, should establish innovation centres. These centres would go beyond the scope of the current Quantum Technology Hubs, involving co-location of academic and industrial partners with the requirement for matched funding from industry.
Proposals in this area are a major component of our vision for Phase 2 of the NQTP and I elaborate on this below.
Recommendation 11: The programme partners in the UK National Quantum Technologies Programme, together with the Quantum Technology Hubs, should establish a body with the funding and sole remit to coordinate activities across the programme more effectively.
The formation of UKRI offers the vehicle for realising this, led by a high level board with leadership provided by a senior scientist with experience in the field supported by a delivery team of officials from the partner organisations. This programme level coordination could bring multiple advantages in terms of presenting and communicating the national programme to potential partners and beneficiaries such as large industry, venture capital and end users, as well as to government and the public. In delivery, a coordinated approach could quickly review progress and opportunity, and be able to direct funds to the most critical activities.
• Q2: The relative contribution/support from government, researchers and businesses needed to make quantum technologies a success;
The continuation of the UK-NQTP has strong support from industry, but government co-investment remains as an essential component in reducing the risk around developing new products based on quantum technology and in attracting significant inward investment to the UK. It is a key goal of the proposed second phase to engage with a wider range of industries. In the context of the future landscape for funding, it is crucial that this ecosystem for research, technology development, training and innovation is both sustained and extended.
Innovation Centres are key to accelerating translation work in the UK-NQTP, with the potential to deliver close integration with existing investments, with co-location of industry and academic teams around shared resources, including specialist engineering skills and capital facilities. At present this unifying function is being provided by the Quantum Technology Hubs but I believe this requires strengthening and broadening of the Hub’s engagement mechanisms. We have also seen how regional partnerships with research teams and local LEPS can leverage substantial industry commitment (the new Bristol Quantum Innovation Centre, funded at £42M has 50% industry commitment). The current flexibility offered by the Hubs’ operational model in managing their funding across different technology streams and to engage the industrial and user community in feasibility and proof of concept projects has been key to their successes. Moving forward I advocate a model where the role of Hubs is expanded in both scope and scale to allow intensive accelerated industrialisation of the most promising technologies. Although the Innovation Centres will have common management and most likely a common location with one or more Hubs, it is crucial that they have a strong industrial steer. Innovation activity might have technical staff either core or seconded to the centre on a project-by-project basis to cover skills such as product development, electronics, software development and dedicated project management to ensure delivery to industry standards. The result will be a flexible, dynamic quantum innovation ecosystem capable of securing the UK’s place at the forefront of the quantum revolution
Linking the Innovation Centres (to be established via open competition) with the existing Hubs infrastructure not only delivers a permeable interface to allow the flow of people and ideas between academia and industry but also delivers a cost effective mechanism, maximising the proportion of funding for industrial projects. As well as offering a conduit to innovation for the Hub(s) technologies, Innovation Centres will have a broader national remit to accelerate technology from all sources. Innovation Centres will also be a focus for industrial co-location as well as specialist prototyping and test facilities and will be national assets to support both academic research and industrial innovation. Their projects will attract a mixture of EPSRC, Innovate UK and industrial investment.
A challenge raised by industry has been the shortage of Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel (SQEP) in this emergent technology. The UK’s world-class research in quantum technologies has been enhanced by support and training by the Centres for Doctoral Training. The CDTs and Training and Training and Skills Hubs have provided inspirational training for a new generation of researchers and entrepreneurs. The case for continuation of this highly integrated approach under the UK-NQTP umbrella seems compelling. In addition to the CDTs, I strongly believe the programme should support training aimed at delivering a pipeline of competent technicians and engineers who are sought after by industry. Training should be tailored for learners at all stages of their careers and cover a range of quantum technology-relevant disciplines.
• Q3: The current state of the UK quantum industry and its potential going forward, including particular strengths and challenges;
Industrial engagement is growing in response to new technology being accelerated towards application. A number of technologies are already operating outside the laboratory setting and are being tested for industrial use; miniature atomic clocks have been delivered, portable gravity sensors are undertaking surveys side by side with commercial instruments, cameras are being deployed to visualise gas leaks, quantum magnetic sensors and quantum secure communications are being tested in academic and industrial settings. Engagement is strong in the SME sector but with growing involvement from larger companies (BT, Airbus, Leonardo, Thales, QinetiQ, Oxford Instruments etc).
We have already set in motion an Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund Quantum Pioneer Programme (with £20M and the expectation of matching funds from industry) to develop our industrial base, integrated with UK research; despite the undeniable success of the UKNQTP investment, we are only at the start of the journey.
• Q4: What oversight or regulation is needed;
Appropriate regulation may assist the early adoption of these new technology opportunities; inappropriate regulation could be extremely damaging at worst and delaying at best.
• Q5: Potential barriers for developing quantum technologies, and how these might be overcome;
Models for better partnership between researchers and industry are needed to allow us to move prototypes and demonstrators further up the TRL chain, with both flexible short term opportunities to build the supply chain and larger and longer opportunities to produce products of substance. Phase 2 and especially the ISCF are designed to enable this to happen.
• Q6: What research priorities there should be for quantum technologies and their possible uses, and who is best placed to undertake/fund that work;
The research priorities identified by the existing Hubs are wide-ranging and exciting and the Hubs are wonderful delivery vehicles for undertaking world-class work in QT. However, we need to find a way to bring in those new groups and individuals who have emerged in the UK since the creation of the Hubs. Many of these will add capability and insight that will add tremendous new value to our enterprise
• Q7: The role of international collaboration in quantum technology research and development; and the risks and opportunities of Brexit in this area;
This is a major challenge for us: we have benefitted greatly from active collaboration with researchers around the world. In Europe, we have led Framework Programme Networks and have been very active in formulating plans for the new EU Flagship Programme in QT. BREXIT presents serious challenges to our continuing involvement in these activities.
UK researchers in QT have been very successful in attracting ERC awards which give long term support for underpinning basic research, and our continuing engagement in ERC awards (or at least an effective substitute) is essential in my view.
We are actively involved in the EU QUANTERA programme (I chair their Scientific Advisory Board) that acts as a catalyst for trans-EU QT collaboration in the build-up to the Flagship and this has demonstrated a substantial appetite in the UK for continuing European science collaboration in quantum.
BREXIT may also generate obstacles to inward investment in QT from major EU companies (Siemens, Bosch, VW are all investing in QT).
In addition, we need to do more to attract investment in the UK in QT from multinational IT and electronics companies.
• Q8: Any challenges from potential civil/military ‘dual-use’ applications of the technologies, and how these can be addressed;
One challenge is the possibility of US export restrictions on QT products through their ITAR process; work is underway with colleagues across UK Government to understand and address these issues and to provide the appropriate advice for researchers and companies.
• Q9: Any potential societal implications—positive and negative—of the development of quantum technologies, including on health, security, privacy or equality.
Work is needed to continue public engagement to understand the opportunities and challenges presented by QT. There is considerable interest in all things quantum by the general public.
I would be delighted to elaborate on any of these points if needed by the Select Committee.
April 2018