Space Industry Bill [HL]
Tuesday 27th June 2017
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text
Space Industry Bill [HL]
Wednesday 12th July 2017
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the UK space industry is a British success story—a story of invention and innovation, of enterprising spirit and global ambition: from our close collaboration with the European Space Agency, which continues to yield ground-breaking science and discovery, to our globally respected satellite companies leading the small satellite revolution. I know that many noble Lords share my admiration for the UK’s achievements in space and will be keen to contribute to its continued success, which is why I welcome their input into and scrutiny of the Space Industry Bill, a Bill that will boldly go where no Bill has gone before.
Very few people realise how important space is to our everyday lives. Satellites in particular provide many critical services that we all take for granted. Navigation satellites, for example, provide the precision timing needed to enable global financial transactions. They support the safe and efficient use of our seas and skies, and help us all to find our way in unfamiliar surroundings. Weather satellites equip farmers, health workers and the emergency services with the foresight to protect people, property and produce from extreme weather, and provide unique insights into our changing climate. Communication and imaging satellites let us monitor disasters and threats to our national interests, and allow us to watch live news events unfolding anywhere on earth. Indeed, satellites, a specialty of the British space industry, play a crucial role in our economy, supporting more than £250 billion of our GDP, and provide the data to power the future of our digital economy. Noble Lords can see why space has been made part of our critical national infrastructure.
This is how we use space today. Looking to the future, ambitious new plans could require tens of thousands of new small satellites to be launched and serviced. This surge in demand is the result of the declining costs of satellite manufacturing and launch services. What was once possible only at huge public expense is now being pursued commercially by companies such as SpaceX and Rocket Lab, spurred on by the global market for small satellite launch that could be worth £25 billion over the next 20 years. This is not the only opportunity. Sub-orbital flights to the edge of space offer another emerging commercial prospect. Such flights would not only be thrilling for paying customers but could expand the boundaries of human knowledge by giving our world-leading science sector access to the unique environment of microgravity, enabling exciting opportunities for discovery in many branches of science. Empowering our aerospace sector to pursue this opportunity will ensure that future aircraft technology comes by way of British innovation, keeping us at the forefront of aviation as we move into an exciting future of long-distance, high-speed air travel.
We have in front of us opportunities of significant strategic and economic consequence. The UK is well equipped to pursue commercial markets in both small satellite launch and sub-orbital flight. Our northern latitude, abundant coastline, aviation heritage, great engineering capability, thriving space sector and business-friendly environment are all factors which make the UK an attractive destination for these services. In line with our modern industrial strategy, we will strengthen our economy by allowing UK companies to benefit from access to new opportunities and supply chains. The sky will no longer be the limit for our talented scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs, and we will attract the capability, infrastructure and investment needed to prepare for the next 50 years of spaceflight.
For example, British companies like Reaction Engines are developing engine technology which could revolutionise the way we get to and from space, making it easier and cheaper to escape the earth’s atmosphere. If we fail to prepare for these opportunities, the UK risks losing out to early adopters overseas and would not receive the benefits of this British innovation. However, we must move quickly. Experts are forecasting a sharp rise in demand for launch services from 2020 and we are not alone in pursuing this market. The first movers in Europe are likely to gain a significant commercial advantage over those who arrive later.
A number of operators from the UK and further afield have expressed an interest in launching from UK spaceports. They recognise the benefits of setting up shop here, but until now have not had a sufficient legal framework to enable safe and secure operations. This is why we are here today. For several years we have been laying the groundwork for commercial small satellite launches and sub-orbital flight in the UK by understanding what regulation needs to be put in place to enable safe commercial spaceflight in this country; identifying the key characteristics of any potential locations from which commercial spaceflight operations could be safely launched, and the infrastructure and facilities that would be required; and developing an understanding of the complex array of technologies in this emerging market and exploring options and approaches to attract commercial spaceflight operators and investment to deliver Launch UK.
Our thanks must go to all those who have helped to inform, challenge and shape this policy, which has resulted in the Bill before us, which aims to boost the economy, British business, engineering and science by making the UK the most attractive place in Europe for commercial spaceflight. It provides for the creation of a regulatory framework to enable commercial spaceflight activities—both launch to orbit and sub-orbital spaceflight—to be carried out from spaceports in the United Kingdom. It will work alongside the existing Outer Space Act, which was enacted primarily to implement UK obligations under UN space treaties. To date, this has involved licensing of satellites launched from overseas.
The Bill has to be sensitive to the context of the emerging market, which is full of innovation, disruptive technology and rapidly evolving business models. In this context it would be inappropriate and self-defeating to set down in the Bill language that would inflexibly bind the UK’s ability to respond to this market as it emerges. Instead, we seek to be a global exemplar of good regulation by balancing flexibility and foresight with an absolute commitment to safety and best practice. As such, the Bill provides a framework for the development of more detailed rules in secondary legislation, supplemented by guidance and supported by a licensing regime.
I place on record my express and immense appreciation for the pre-legislative scrutiny already carried out on the draft Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and by the Science and Technology Committee in the other place to strengthen this framework. I know noble Lords will further build on this process with the benefit of their work, for which I am also grateful. Our collegiate approach will continue as we develop secondary legislation, consulting on key issues and providing confidence to investors and insurers that the UK will develop safe, business-friendly regulation in the public interest.
Our space industry extends to and benefits all territories in the United Kingdom, and potential spaceport sites have come forward from all across our union. The Bill extends to all those territories, except for certain provisions not extending to Northern Ireland and Scotland as described in individual clauses.
As I am sure noble Lords will see, the Bill is comprehensive in the measures it puts forward. These include the duties of the regulator, the intention being that space activities will be regulated by the Secretary of State acting through the UK Space Agency, and sub-orbital activities by the Civil Aviation Authority. It also provides for range and range control and the licensing of the range control service provider, operator and spaceport operator, setting out the circumstances in which regulators may grant such licences and where such licences are needed. It refers to informed consent, training, qualifications and medical fitness to ensure safe and effective regulation of persons taking part in spaceflight and associated activities.
The Bill also provides for safety regulations, investigation of accidents and security. In addition, we have offences against the safety of spacecraft, which draw on offences against aircraft and aerodromes in the Aviation Security Act 1982 and the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 respectively. The Bill covers monitoring and enforcement, allowing the regulator to investigate and prosecute offences contained in or made under the Bill.
The Bill regulates liabilities, indemnities and insurance. We have chosen not to bind any operational policy decisions by specifying any cap on liability. The existing Outer Space Act permits only the capping of the operator’s indemnity to the Government and contains no provision concerning the operator’s liability to third parties. We consider that the liability provisions in the Bill are therefore more comprehensive. However, liability capping will be subject to further consultation to ensure that our policy and regulation on capping, and many more measures besides, are in the public interest.
The Space Industry Bill is necessarily broad in scope, but it benefits from the experience and best practice of international launch and our own world-class aviation regulators, resulting in a safe, proportionate and comprehensive enabling framework in one piece of legislation.
In turn, the activities defined in the Bill and its subsequent regulatory framework will benefit many in the UK. Entrepreneurs will benefit from new opportunities to build innovative commercial enterprises off the back of launch services and small satellite data. Local economies will benefit from the creation of spaceport sites, with related jobs and opportunities in construction and hospitality. Our small satellite industry will have direct access to domestic launch capacity, reducing dependence on foreign launch services and enabling growth across the industry. British-based scientists will benefit from increased access to microgravity and investment in institutional capability in launch, spaceflight and related sciences, attracting world-class scientists to the UK. Young people seeking careers in science, technology, engineering and maths will gain new opportunities and greater inspiration from an expanding UK spaceflight industry. The UK as a whole will benefit from access to a strategic small satellite launch capability, contributing to our understanding of the world, the provision of public and commercial services, the delivery of national security and new opportunities for investment and export.
Half a century ago, the British rocket programme was considered unviable, but as the last rocket had already been built it was given permission to launch. Prospero, the small satellite that it successfully transported into space, was the first and, currently, only satellite to reach orbit on a British launch. Today, we stand at the dawn of a new commercial space age—an age in which we can once more reach for the stars, not at vast public expense or with our being dependent on the hospitality of others, but in the best spirit of British innovation by enabling, attracting and empowering commercial markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital flight from UK spaceports.
So let us end Prospero’s lonely record. Let us empower our best and brightest to reach higher than they ever have before, inspire the next generation to reach higher still and, in so doing, deliver the benefits that low-cost access to space will bring us all. In this spirit, I welcome scrutiny of and debate on the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s space industry is important not only nationally but internationally. It already contributes substantially—approximately £13.7 billion to the UK economy and some 38,000 jobs. Workers in the sector are nearly three times more productive than the UK average. The UK’s space sector is at the forefront of developments and therefore poised to make an even greater contribution in the form of space transportation, generating thousands more jobs throughout the sector and inspiring many young people to pursue studies and careers in the sciences. The aim of the UK Space Agency is to ensure that the UK develops into a major global player in this fledgling sector. It is important that the Government, through the passing of legislation as well as the publication of policy, give strong support to this aim.
However, it is also important to emphasise that a Bill that introduces regulation can, unless carefully administered, also bring with it the undesirable potential for overregulation, wiping out the benefits that regulation can provide. It is vital that the space industry regulator, whether the Civil Aviation Authority or another body, should act in a positive and not a negative way when exercising its discretionary powers. As Sir Stephen Dalton, former Chief of the Air Staff and president of the Royal Aeronautical Society, writes in its magazine:
“The use of and access to space is growing exponentially and the increasing international commercial sources of such access are only likely to become more varied over the coming decade. Our community needs to encourage all the relevant agencies and organisations to move as speedily as possible to ensure that the facilities, spaceports, launch co-ordination and recovery options, as well as the regulatory structures, are framed and agreed in line with the greater access and use of space. International and inter-governmental agreements will be needed and new ways of working together on the continuum which is space, need to be brokered and agreed as soon as practicable”.
It is to be noted that much of the contents and format of the Bill mirror many of the provisions of the current civil aviation Acts, with the advantage that the interpretation of comparable provisions has been tried and tested previously over a number of years. This provides legislative confidence. It is unarguable that ensuring public safety must be the regulator’s overriding consideration when exercising its statutory duties. Regulation is required and will provide public and investor confidence in space transportation as well as in the other areas the Bill covers. All these factors are welcome.
What is missing from the Bill, however, is any balancing provision comparable to that found in Section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 placing the Secretary of State under a general duty of encouraging measures for the development of space transportation within the UK. This is a highly valuable and effective provision and can no doubt be the subject of further consideration during scrutiny of the Bill in Committee. It is to be noted that the US Government expressly recognise the need to facilitate a pro-growth environment for the developing commercial space industry by encouraging private sector investment and creating more stable and predictable regulatory conditions. It is now for the UK Government to do so too.
It is not as if the UK is a follower and not a leader in the aviation and aerospace sector. The UK has been at the forefront of the development of aviation since the first powered flights by Cody at Farnborough in 1908 and arguably half a century before that, when, in 1849, Sir George Cayley strapped a hapless young local boy into his prototype glider for its first test flight: there was no such thing as the CAA or any regulatory control in those days. Since the 1950s, space flight has been developed with the UK occupying a leading role and today the UK is a major user of space and a provider of space technology to the world. Space is strategically important to the UK. The Government’s goal of making this a £40 billion sector by 2030 is ambitious but attainable, with the right economic and legislative climate in place. In the absence of overregulation, especially when compared with other nations, including many in Europe, we have the drive, the knowledge, the universities and a world-class aerospace industry to ensure that the UK becomes a world leader in the promotion and provision of space transportation and space technology. It could be said that we are at the second dawn of UK aerospace, following which space travel becomes commonplace. Let the UK Parliament, Government and the devolved Administrations play their respective parts in its achievement.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill. There is no doubt that the UK’s growing involvement in space science and technology over the past 30 years, from a rather low point, has now definitely encouraged greater general interest in science and technology in schools and universities. The Russians and then the United States knew that animal and human participation was a great stimulus to popular interest—it was a dog first, as noble Lords will remember, and then some humans.
The UK has seen the same stimulus, with Helen Sharman becoming the first women from the UK in space and then Tim Peake’s space voyage last year. At the Royal Institution Christmas lectures two years ago, full of young, enthusiastic scientists, and at a Science Museum event recently, Tim Peake communicated with thousands of schoolchildren as he demonstrated his scientific experiments in the space environment. The excitement and risk of the voyages were definitely part of the attraction.
Along with fundamental scientific experiments, satellites have provided many practical and commercial benefits in navigation, communication and monitoring the environment near and above the earth’s surface, such as for weather and climate, ocean waves, volcanoes and the huge and dangerous effect of solar storms. As director of the Met Office, I represented the United Kingdom at the European meteorological satellite organisation, which worked closely with the UK space industry.
The UK has developed its space involvement through its membership of the European Space Agency and through UK and European-wide companies such as Airbus. Some of the UK’s satellite business was developed with Russian launchers; particularly, for example, the Surrey satellites. This continued involvement with European space research and commerce has competed and collaborated with the activities of the major space nations. An important aspect of the ESA business has been launching satellites from its base in French Guiana through the company Arianespace. The Bill proposes that satellites will be launched from one or more bases or spaceports in the UK. These will have to be carefully regulated, as set out in the Bill.
The Bill has to be broadly framed so that, first, spaceflight provides new business: for example, tourism and testing new systems and materials. The UK’s small satellite companies, such as Surrey, have been very successful—but they are now part of an international company. This approach should enable small countries to have their own satellites; for example, that company has worked closely with developing countries around the world. I believe that the use of space for development in these countries is a very important part of our space programme, and with the UK making a substantial financial contribution to developing countries, I trust that that will be part of the expenditure on space. Secondly, there will be connections between the international space station and low-orbit satellites. Through Tim Peake and others, the UK has been involved in the international space station.
Another interesting aspect to the science and technology is associated with microgravity, as the Minister described, with many applications of the extraordinary physical and biological experiments; for example, relating to drugs, aerosols and odours. There is a nice example on Google of what happens to a candle lit at ground level: when it goes up into space and gravity drops, the flame turns blue. I thought your Lordships would like a little bit of science.
The ranges for civilian operations extend over land and sea. Presumably these will be privately owned. Will foreign ownership be permitted? Surely security is important. What is not clear is how the Bill relates to the current regulations of United Nations agencies, which do not get a very full audience in this House, I am afraid. For example, the International Civil Aviation Organization—ICAO—will play a significant role in the growing business of space. ICAO will also have an important role with regard to UK satellites being launched from airspace or from foreign aircraft. Another aspect is the International Atomic Energy Agency, which regulates radioactivity and nuclear materials. Will any nuclear materials be involved in these near-orbit launches? I believe they should be.
There is also the question of whether there will be launches from shipping or oil platforms. I was at the annual meeting of the International Maritime Organization last week. The UK plays a prominent role in that UN agency. For example, one might have the situation that we have at the moment with ships with flags of convenience; some small countries have a large number of ships with their flag. One wonders whether the same thing may happen here. That needs to be considered very carefully.
I support the enthusiastic approach of the Minister to the Bill, which has my support.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare two interests. First, I am a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As the Minister said, its involvement with this legislation began early. It was invited to comment on the draft spaceflight Bill at the request of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee towards the end of the previous Parliament, a contribution which was welcome as a precedent and which, in turn, led to substantial changes from what was, in effect, a skeletal Bill to one where the number of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure has increased from four to 13.
My second declaration is that I live in Prestwick, having moved to Scotland in December last year. I take an active interest in the area, not least because the office I occupy overlooks Prestwick Airport. I am a strong believer that Scotland and south Ayrshire, in particular, can significantly benefit from being designated and licensed as one of the first airports to enable commercial spaceflight activities—not vertical-launch rockets, but the horizontal launch of modified 747s to include satellites, scientific experimentation and suborbital spaceplanes. This part of Scotland is already a hub for high-tech engineering and experts in the aviation industry. It is also home to a wide range of entrepreneurially minded individuals from Buzzworks, with its nationally achieved award-winning restaurants across Ayrshire, to the remarkable business acumen and philanthropism of Tom and Marion Hunter. This is an area ready to take on the challenge as a home for high-tech companies as well as being one of the most beautiful areas of the United Kingdom. However, despite that paean of praise, I have no commercial interest in the subject of the Bill. My views are personal and underline my belief that south Ayrshire can become a thriving business centre for the supply and service sector to support spaceport activities.
In his excellent speech, the Minister referred to the way in which links with schools can provide the vital local benefit of preparing young people for careers in aviation technology and the spaceflight industry. The area can become a thriving economic zone lifting it to the forefront of technical expertise with training programmes, a visitor centre and some 880 acres of land for aerospace-related development adjoining Prestwick Airport. Prestwick Aerospace already employs more than 3,000 highly skilled employees. It is the largest aerospace cluster in Scotland. If other sites are licensed in Scotland, the aerospace cluster at Prestwick will be able to service their development and act as the hub for technical and supply activities, bringing significant jobs to the local communities.
The educational links are perhaps the most exciting for the area. Ayr College, Strathclyde University, Glasgow University, UWS and the Astronomy Technology Centre at Edinburgh University can all be significant beneficiaries. Prestwick Airport is well located and has the best surface links of any Scottish airport. Its local weather microclimate is recognised as the best in the UK. It is not looking to become a Cape Canaveral with vertical launches—more remote locations would fit that bill—but it would focus on horizontal flights.
Of course, this Bill is not just about Prestwick. As the Minister stated, there are many opportunities throughout the United Kingdom, and it is my firm opinion that it will be necessary to license at least two spaceports in the UK to develop and deliver a sustainable and effective solution for launch operations, including, most importantly, diversionary runway capabilities.
Addressing the whole of the UK, the regulatory environment has the potential to support companies in their bid to help government,
“capture 10% of the global space market”,
by 2030. The most immediate beneficiary of this Bill will be the opportunity to deliver a significant proportion of the estimated 3,500 to 10,000 satellites that are due to be launched by 2025. It will also facilitate the building of bigger and more technologically advanced satellites and remove the need for UK companies to use test facilities located abroad.
Today is the first step in the parliamentary process to create the legal framework to enable exciting new technologies to operate safely from the UK. It is a welcome clear signal of the UK’s commitment to enable commercial spaceflight to be carried out from UK spaceports, including the launching of small satellites into orbit, and permitting manned suborbital operations for scientific experiments and space tourism. It is essential that through the legislation before us we create a regulatory process which is internationally competitive for the billions of dollars of investment income which can boost the economy, British business, engineering and science by making the UK the most attractive place in Europe for commercial spaceflight and competitive with any regulatory system in the world. That is a significant challenge, but the most important objective is to provide a comprehensive and proportionate regulatory framework to manage risk, ensuring that commercial spaceflight and everyone working in the sector remain safe. The measures in the Bill to promote public safety by providing a regulatory framework to cover operational insurance, indemnity and liability are important in this respect.
Committee stage will provide us with the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail. When we do, there are a number of key issues which we need to consider, some requiring an important balance between regulation and the vital importance the private sector attributes to the Bill providing a competitive framework, with enthusiasm and backing from the Government and a level of funding support commensurate with commercial success. As my noble friend the Minister said, we are talking about intense international competition to attract inward investment. The Government will need to step up to the plate as much as the private sector and will need to do so quickly if we are to gain competitive advantage.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that we do not stifle this opportunity by overregulating, as other nations such as Spain, Portugal and Norway are preparing competing legislation and launch sites. I ask my noble friend to give the House his commitment that the final legislative framework will ensure that the Government recognise the reduced risks posed by small-scale microlaunchers and nanosat payloads, each exceptionally valuable new areas where Britain could lead the world with “soft touch” regulatory oversight, while always recognising that there is no room for manoeuvre when it comes to the paramount question of safety. To allow this industry to succeed in the long term, it is essential that licensing, insurance and range-tracking costs are appropriate to the level of risk, so that the UK can build a globally competitive national space launch capability for the UK. A burdensome regulatory requirement would negatively impact this opportunity, which will see a massive growth in satellites and an ultimate colonisation of space.
From the perspective of my work on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I believe the Government have already moved significantly to improve the Bill, which is very welcome. I was concerned that in the original draft Bill, the Government appeared to dispense spaceport operators from any statutory requirement in any Act of Parliament, without any parliamentary procedure whatever. Now, the Government have acknowledged, perhaps implicitly, the committee’s argument that a regulator’s job is to regulate compliance with the law not to dispense people from complying with the law.
It is also welcome to see that the Government have taken on board many of the committee’s recommendations. The number of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure has increased from four to 13, and two objectionable Henry VIII powers have been removed altogether. However, my one remaining concern in this area is the question of safety in a new, fast-moving and changing technology-driven sector. In the case of safety regulations under Clause 18, my noble friend justified making the first set of regulations affirmative, and subsequent regulations only negative, on the ground that the continuous updating of safety regulations should occur in a “nimble and proportionate” way—an unfortunate turn of phrase. No one would want safety regulations not to be updated because of the alleged difficulty of scheduling affirmative debates. I had ministerial responsibility for responding to both the Hillsborough tragedy and the Piper Alpha disaster, and the safety of the public must always be paramount. It sits as a priority alongside the safety of the nation. I very much hope that the Government will further reflect on the compromise solution on offer in Clause 18. I believe the issue of safety is sufficiently important to require the affirmative procedure whenever and wherever safety regulations are revised and updated, particularly in this new industry. It should be for the House to be proportionate and not the Government.
I also hope the Minister can respond to the excellent comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the international relationships we have in this sector. I hope he will give a commitment today that we should be working very closely with the FAA in the United States, looking to learn from its regulatory framework and seeking to agree a bilateral arrangement to submit export licences for approval. I hope urgent progress is being made on this front and that the question of what is US technology and how it will be controlled if not on US soil is resolved before we leave Committee. The FAA in the States had never seen spaceflight before. It had to work through the role with all interested parties, as we should. There was a need to determine the right balance between the roles and the responsibilities of each and every party. We need similar progress in the UK, and I hope that my noble friend can set out a timeline for the measures set out in the Bill until the first licences and approvals are granted.
My second request to the Government is that, notwithstanding which operator is appointed, the sector needs to be joined up. There is talk of the Space Agency investing a sum of £10 million. We need to recognise that this will not go far in a multibillion pound industry if we are to meet the Government’s objectives. The cost of a suborbital flight system is of the order of £120 million, and modifying a 747 as a carrier aircraft stationed in a UK airport—the type envisaged for airports such as Prestwick—is unlikely to cost much less than £700 million. Yet we have no real idea how the Space Agency is approaching the grant process and how it will reach decisions about which sites it backs and which operators at those sites. It has talked of £10 million being available, but it is not clear whether that will be per site or per operator. Not to put too fine a point on it, as I mentioned, £10 million is de minimis funding in the context of the space industry, especially if the UK wants to get behind it and establish a new, exciting growth industry as we approach Brexit.
My third and final observation is that we want to avoid regulatory mission creep. We must at all times maximise the participation of the private sector while providing a safe, secure, transparent and accountable regulatory framework, and there is no time to lose.
The Bill is a welcome and important step in the right direction, and I very much hope that when the House moves into Committee, we will have the momentum towards further and accelerated progress and clarity for the future of an important sector in a safe working environment.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in what I thought was a thoughtful and constructive speech. There are a number of reasons why I wanted to speak in this debate. I am a member of the All-Party Space Group. I am the treasurer of the Parliamentary Internet, Communications and Technology Forum—Pictfor. I have a son who works as a space engineer in Germany, and I was inspired by the adventures of Dan Dare in the Eagle in the 1950s. It is interesting to remember that Dan Dare was set in the 1980s, and the assumption was that Britain would be leading an international space effort to Venus by then. Of course, Dan Dare also inspired a generation of children with the idea of space travel and condemned schoolmasters across the land to the nickname “the Mekon” after Dan Dare’s small, green nemesis.
The moon landing in 1969 sustained the idea that space travel was just around the corner. The reality has been much slower and more circumspect, which prompted Sir Richard Branson to invest in space travel via Virgin Galactic, explaining as he did so that,
“government is not in the business of taking you and me to space; they have other priorities. It is up to private enterprise to learn from what government had started and pave a way for other applications for their technology”.
It is that thinking which is at the heart of the Bill. This is not the start of a mega state-funded journey into space. As the Explanatory Notes make clear:
“The Bill provides for the regulation and licensing of space activities”.
It is an enabling Bill which is in some ways very modest in its ambitions. It employs what I would describe as the “Field of Dreams” approach. Noble Lords will remember that in that film, Kevin Costner was encouraged to build a baseball stadium in the middle of nowhere with the heavenly advice, “Build it and they will come”. That is very much the advice that the Minister is giving us today.
The task of Parliament is to stress-test the idea in terms of whether there is a market and if there are any legal, safety or environmental issues which have to be taken into account. In terms of public support for the space industry, my noble friend Lady Randerson, who unfortunately cannot be with us today, has warned against pouring resources into projects of unproven merit while areas of transport are crying out for investment funds. That is a wise warning. On the other hand, we do not want to be like stagecoach manufacturers at the end of the 19th century: leaders in our field but oblivious to the fact that Henry Ford was about to roll out his Model T.
I mentioned that I was treasurer of Pictfor, one of the largest of the all-party groups looking at the implications for our economy and society of the new data technologies. From our agenda I see that we are on the brink of an explosion of demand for launch facilities to meet the rapid expansion of tele- communications and related technologies which already depend on satellites—from car navigation systems to mobile phones, from television services to cash transfer and withdrawals. In terms of demand for satellite launch capacity, we already have a chronic shortage.
I recently went to a presentation demonstrating the wide range of new technologies and services now being developed which will rely on satellite communications for their efficiency and success. The idea of driverless cars has already caught the public imagination. They will need a satellite-based support system far stronger and more accurate than the GPS systems with which we are all familiar. In addition to driverless cars, there is artificial intelligence, the internet of things and the development of 5G. This technological tsunami is already under way and almost all of it will involve satellite and space technologies in one way or another.
The US inventor/engineer/entrepreneur Elon Musk is talking of constellations of thousands of satellites, and it is clear that the next stage in the development of the space industry will involve building the capacity for thousands of launches for many years to come. So, in terms of spaceports, if we build them the customers are likely to come. It is also true that space travel, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, retains the capacity to excite and inspire, particularly among the young. One only has to witness how the exploits of Helen Sharman and Major Tim Peake inspired great national pride and interest. I understand that Tim Peake is already scheduled to return to the International Space Station, so we will soon have a Brit in orbit once again, with the accompanying rise in public interest in space travel, and we wish him well.
I appreciate that this Bill is about not the International Space Station but what I might call the bread-and-butter side of the space industry, for which this Bill offers the framework legislation. Here we have to ask ourselves if this is a sector where we have the know-how and the capacity to succeed. It seems that here again the auguries are good. The UK is well placed to capitalise on the expansion of the space industry, with UK companies, such as Clyde Space and Surrey Satellite Technology, which has been referred to, already at the forefront of small-scale satellite manufacturing.
In preparation for this debate I received a briefing from another British company, Orbex, which is hoping to develop full orbital launch capabilities in Scotland with backing from the UK Space Agency and the European Commission’s H2020 programme, as well as private venture funds. Some of our leading universities are also pathfinders in the field. Surrey Satellite Technology is a spin-off from the University of Surrey. The University of Leicester is working on plans to introduce an automated approach to satellite building that is similar to that used in the car and aircraft industry. This will be collocated with the National Space Centre.
Last month it was announced that the first commercial astronaut training centre will be built in the UK. The £120 million Blue Abyss facility will be constructed at RAF Henlow in Bedfordshire. In addition to these purely British ventures, a number of international companies, such as Airbus and Thales, are working here on space ventures. Private firms, such as Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Elon Musk’s SpaceX, are also in the field.
At the moment we are also well represented in European Space Agency projects and the number one investor in the main commercial programmes: telecommunications, earth observation and navigation. Can the Minister give an assurance that our involvement in the European Space Agency and its projects will be fully protected and sustained post Brexit? The space industry is a highly collaborative industry. For it to succeed, it must have access to public, private and international funding, co-operate extensively with other states, have access to the free flow of people and ideas and be governed by a robust regulatory structure.
Are the Government undertaking any risk assessment as to impact of Brexit on our space industry? There are already worries in the sector, which thrives on the freedom to recruit the best and brightest. A hard Brexit that included the UK’s exit from the Galileo satellite navigation programme and brought in cumbersome border checks would completely undermine the UK’s desire to be the European hub for satellite launches. The truth is that Brexit is bound to cast a long shadow over our future prospects in the space industry. Since the Black Arrow and Blue Streak projects ended our ambitions as an independent player 50 years ago, as the Minister said, the emphasis of the past 30 years has been on the collaborative European efforts. Compared with other European space nations, the UK still has a very small national programme. Although the Government are putting great emphasis on encouraging the private sector, there is a case for a national programme to complement our ESA investment.
There are a range of other issues relating to insurance, liability and licensing, which will probably be best dealt with in Committee. In advance of that, have the Government considered plans for establishing a regulatory advisory group that would allow would-be participants to feed in ideas and concerns as the projects develop? It may be that lessons can be learned from other industries about safety and security concerns and engagement with the communities where they are located. The nuclear industry has a lot to teach us in that respect. Has any study been made of the likely environmental impact of spaceports and rocket launching? Has a full impact assessment been made of the cost of protecting spaceports from terrorists or other possible attacks?
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised a number of other issues, which will need clarifying, on safety and international laws. We have an important job to do in getting the balance right between entrepreneurial freedom and public safety. I received two briefings which illustrate the dilemma that we face. From Orbex, the British company that I mentioned earlier, I received the plea:
“It must be paramount that the UK does not stifle this opportunity by over-regulating, as other nations such as Spain, Portugal and Norway are readying legislation and preparing launch sites. The UK should ensure that the framework legislation recognises the reduced risks posed by small-scale micro-launchers and nano-sat payloads, such exceptionally valuable new areas where Britain—and Scotland in particular—could lead the world with a soft-touch regulatory oversight. It is essential that licencing, insurance and range-tracking costs are appropriate to the level of risk”.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, got the same briefing, but it is worth repeating.
On the other hand, both the Science and Technology Select Committee in its report on the Bill and a detailed brief that I received yesterday from the Royal Aeronautical Society raised a range of issues about safety, liability, legal scope, planning, environmental impact and so on. Those are matters that we will be able to raise more effectively in Committee. Briefs arguing for a light touch and for specific regulation are helpful and will be used at the appropriate time. I welcome the offer that I received today from the Minister’s office to engage with all sides of the House as this goes forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and others have said, we need to get the balance right with regulation that gives assurances about safety and freedom for entrepreneurs to take this forward.
As I said at the beginning, I am unashamedly of the Dan Dare generation. I have an Eagle annual that is 60 years old, which has a fully diagrammed article on how to build a spaceport, which I am very happy to provide to the Minister as part of the new spirit of collaboration. He has already laid claim to being part of the “Star Trek” generation by his opening quote—I had thought of him as more of a Buzz Lightyear than a Spock. I think that we will have an interesting time with this Bill and I am sure that, in the same spirit as that in which he introduced it, we can make it a good Bill for a very exciting industry.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, one hazard of speaking later in the debate is that many of the good points have already been made, so I apologise in advance if I indulge in a bit of reiteration. I warmly welcome this Bill; I do not approach it as a space expert but as an amateur enthused by what a recent Goldman Sachs report called “the second space age”, with the space economy forecast to become a multibillion-dollar market within the next two decades. It is a market in which the UK and UK businesses can play a leading role, if we are able to establish early-mover advantage. As has already been mentioned, countries such as Spain, Portugal and Norway are all preparing to bring forward competing legislation and launch sites.
It seems to me that that is what the Bill is all about. A globally competitive and successful space industry cannot be built if we do not first put in place a regulatory framework to make it possible—one which recognises the space industry as it is today, not as it was 20 years ago. Traditionally, space has been dominated by Governments and government agencies with significant reliance on public funding, which is not surprising given the hitherto high costs of space entry. The UK space industry has therefore had to argue its corner for funds in the face of competing demands, and it has not always had a sympathetic hearing. Many felt that it was a “nice-to-have”, associated with exotic inter- planetary exploration, compared with the immediate and pressing needs of funding our schools and hospitals.
A few years ago I worked with the UK’s leading space company—then called Astrium, but now Airbus Defence and Space—on how best to argue for continuing investment in space. Our case had the not very original working title of “Bringing space down to earth”. Our argument was that the space industry is not some esoteric luxury; it is highly relevant, and increasingly essential, to improving everyday lives here on earth. GPS, memory foam, LEDs and artificial limbs all owe something to space innovations. If we are going to feed the world’s population—forecast to be 9 billion in 30 years’ time—food production needs to increase by 70%. More precise weather forecasting can help to improve crop yields and better tracking of food shipments can reduce the number of perishable cargos delayed or damaged in transit. More-effective earth observation, brought about by advances in satellite technology, makes all this possible. As we wrestle here in the UK with how to deliver at an acceptable cost superfast broadband to the final 5% of the hardest-to-reach properties, or effectively to track and enforce fishing rights in our territorial waters post Brexit, better answers are likely to be found in developments in space.
The Government are to be commended for having the foresight to recognise the strategic importance of the UK’s space industry. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Willetts, who is not in his place today but who, as Science Minister, was such a great champion of the space industry, overseeing the establishment of the UK Space Agency and an increase in our budgetary contribution to the European Space Agency.
As we look ahead, and as we have already heard today, the space industry is changing fast, driven by falling costs and lower barriers to entry. Satellites are becoming smaller and lighter, and reusable technology and other developments are cutting the cost of launches. A sector hitherto dominated by the public sector is now increasingly seeing an influx of private and commercial players. Private investment in space has been growing rapidly in recent years.
Three-quarters of private investment activity in the space sector since 2000 has taken place in the last five years, with eight space start-ups on average per year, and more than 50 venture capital firms had invested in space enterprises by 2015. As we have heard, private entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson are pioneering new space launch solutions.
While much attention is rightly paid to satellites and the value-adding applications derived from them, looking to the future, space tourism, mining asteroids for precious minerals and on-orbit manufacturing will no longer be in the realms of science fiction; they will become science fact.
The Bill is, of course, designed to facilitate the development of UK spaceports. As such, it begs one pretty big question: is the demand there to support one or possibly more spaceports in the UK? Structural changes in the industry suggest that demand is there, as we have already heard. Traditionally, large and heavy satellites have been launched into geostationary earth orbit from, for example, the Guiana Space Centre on the equator. A new disruptive technology—the so-called CubeSat—opens up new possibilities. It measures just 10 centimetres squared, weighs less than three pounds and typically is used in low-earth orbit, which does not require equatorial launches to be cost-competitive. Therefore, more miniature satellites will be needed to provide sufficient coverage of the earth, and they have a lifespan of just one to three years rather than the 15 for larger, more conventional satellites. All this means that between 2018 and 2020 alone there is a forecast requirement to launch 1,500 small satellites.
Ground infrastructure is therefore going to become a major constraint for CubeSat operators if they are not to rely on piggybacking on the less-suitable missions to launch larger satellites. Therefore, there can be no question but that the Bill before the House is very timely. The Government abandoned the original competition to select the UK spaceport location in favour of the licensing approach set out in the Bill. I think the Government are right not to restrict the possibility of multiple approaches that may allow different launch solutions to be tried in different places, and to bring fresh economic activity to local communities in need of it. As a former Scotland Office Minister, I am delighted to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan for Scotland. If the House will indulge me, I would like to bang the drum for Scotland again. Three of the original five shortlisted spaceport sites are in Scotland at Prestwick, Stornoway in the Outer Hebrides and Campbeltown in the Mull of Kintyre, and only yesterday I learned of a fourth proposed site in Sutherland.
If the UK is fully to realise the economic potential of spaceports, linking them to a broader space industry ecosystem will be a real competitive advantage. In this regard Scotland is very well placed. It has a pre-existing and impressive space cluster of 100 private and public organisations and 18% of the jobs in the UK space industry are in Scotland. Scotland is home to the only UK-owned independent satellite manufacturer, Clyde Space. In the last two years, Glasgow has built more satellites than any other city in Europe. Scottish universities have built a strong reputation in space-related disciplines, including Strathclyde University’s Space Institute and Edinburgh University, which, in collaboration with NASA, is developing Valkyrie, a human-sized robot booked on the next unmanned mission to Mars. One of the perks of being Minister is that you not only get to meet Tim Peake, you also get to meet Valkyrie, which I have to say was like something out of a “Star Wars” movie.
I recognise, of course, that Scotland is not the only place with a strong claim as the location for a spaceport. Some involved in the industry believe that the market could sustain more than one spaceport in the UK. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that when he winds up. I also wonder whether he could address two further points in his wind-up which have been touched on. The first is about the availability of insurance and the capping of liabilities, to which he himself referred. The new market potential comes in large part because costs and barriers to entry are falling. What further reassurance can my noble friend give that uncapped liabilities will not hinder commercial developments, particularly from smaller players and new entrants? The second concerns technology transfer. If spaceports are to succeed, the UK will need to attract those developing new launch technologies to come and operate from here. Many are currently based in the US, although, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I was pleased to hear about a British company, Orbex, which is developing an indigenous, full-orbital launch capability. Nevertheless, does my noble friend foresee any US regulatory hurdles to be overcome—for example, US ITAR restrictions—before these US launch companies are able to operate from here?
In conclusion, I warmly welcome the Bill. It is clear that we need to make quick progress if we are to secure early-mover advantage, and we need to put in place a regulatory regime that is sufficiently flexible to accommodate innovations in a very fast-moving industry.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this subject. I have always favoured bold steps to unlock the potential that new markets hold and sensible frameworks set up by the Government to get the development of such markets right.
Spaceflight is a topic that has long interested me. The moon landing, which many of us in this place will remember, was the first time I turned my eyes heavenwards and considered what lay out there in the inky blackness, studded with lights. The pioneers of the space race are a fine example of how inventions spring forth from good regulation and government attention. Velcro, freeze-dried food and memory foam are a few of the more useful daily tools made available by the scientists at NASA.
It is my firm belief that creating a sensible and flexible regulatory regime will help scientific advance in this country, too. I should say, too, that I am delighted that the British Government were in a position recently to send an official British astronaut into space, in no small part due to the work of my noble friend the former Minister of State for Universities and Science. For us to be outstripped in the ease and regulation of spaceflight by a number of other European countries is certainly an anomaly that needs to be addressed.
I think that, in this Bill, the Government have struck the correct balance. In general, I am wary of excessive secondary legislation supported by guidance. It can give too much power to Ministers to escape the scrutiny and oversight provided here and in the other place. However, since this industry is moving at such a rapid pace, it is entirely reasonable to give more power to Ministers to tweak the rules so as to provide the best business environment. I will still be reading the Policy Scoping Notes, of course. I will be glad if the Minister can confirm that he will further engage with stakeholder industries over the summer to make sure that the Bill is in correct shape ahead of Committee.
Quite often, fledgling industries like this need some help to get off the ground, as it were. In the related industry of aerospace, there is the iconic example of wings. The UK is a world leader in wings due to a substantial investment made in that field by the British European Airways Corporation in the 1960s. Now, Airbus and Boeing still have most of their wing supply chain in this country. It is a great success story, hiring thousands of people across the Midlands, and is a plank of our industrial strategy. In that light, I would like to know whether there has been any consideration of what support could be provided to those who wish to set up spaceports and engage in sub-orbital activity. This need not necessarily take any form of grants, as tax incentives would have a similar stimulating effect.
Furthermore, I am glad that criminal law will be applied to spacecraft pursuant to the provisions of the Bill. I have no doubt that this will be a contentious industry with regular disputes. By applying criminal law to spacecraft, we establish in spaceflight one of the UK’s great advantages—our widely trusted and internationally respected rule of law. This will, in my view, be a tempting prospect for future entrepreneurs and inventors looking for places to set up. Supporting new industry is precisely what the Government should be doing post Brexit, and I am glad that they are. I will be supporting the Bill.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my entries in the register of interests—in particular, my honorary position with the British Airline Pilots Association.
What I have to say may be seen as being tangential, but not irrelevant, to the Bill, but I pray in aid the fact that I have notified the Minister and he did not hit the ceiling when I told him what I would be dealing with—that is, safety, in particular. I commend the remarks of my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. At the moment, we debate all Bills in the shadow of the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the fact that we know that, had steps been taken, we might well not be facing that problem today.
Safety issues are a major feature of the Bill. Clauses 9, 20, 40 and 18 all deal with various aspects of safety, and rightly so. Perhaps I may quote from the briefing notes a couple of points about Clause 18, which is the more general clause. They say:
“The regulations made under clause 18 will provide for overarching safety regulations and those not captured elsewhere”.
It also says that the Clause 18 powers,
“will supplement the matters prescribed under clause 9”,
and that,
“the broader powers in clause 18 will ensure continuing oversight”.
One of the difficulties that arose out of the last election—there were of course many—was that a number of issues that were near the top of the legislative agenda have slipped right down to the bottom. One of those issues, as the Minister will know because I have discussed it with him, is the safety aspect of drones at airports, and that could well apply at spaceports too. As the Minister will know, there has recently been a study of this matter. It has not been published yet, but I am sure that it will be. The point that comes through that study is that, unless some safety legislation is introduced at a fairly early stage, we could have another committee of inquiry looking at what I would regard as an avoidable accident.
I am informed by the parliamentary draftsmen that, as this is a DfT Bill, it would be perfectly possible to strengthen the safety provisions in it and to extend them into areas not presently covered, including drones at airports. In particular, I refer to the hazard they pose to helicopters. Scotland has been mentioned many times in this House and in this debate, and noble Lords will be well aware of the importance of helicopters, particularly in the Scottish North Sea. I realise that the Minister cannot agree anything this afternoon, because this matter is not within his brief today, but I ask him to take back to the department the problem posed by drones and the need, acknowledged by the Government before the election, for legislation to clarify the safety regulations around them. Perhaps he would look at whether it would be possible to add a suitable clause to this Bill or to strengthen one of its existing clauses.
It is a small area, but if it went wrong it would be another tragedy. I believe it to be an avoidable tragedy, and it has been accepted as such. It is sad that time was not found for specific legislation but I believe—and the parliamentary draftsmen seem to agree—that it would be possible to extend this Bill into that area. I invite the Minister to give no more than an undertaking that he will look at this matter when it goes back to the department and, if possible, come back to the House with a helpful amendment to the Bill.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we have heard of “Star Trek”, Dan Dare, Buzz Lightyear and “Star Wars”. I am rather disappointed that no one managed to work HS2 into the narrative—but there may yet be an opportunity. I declare my interests in aerospace as listed in the Members’ register.
We have heard overwhelming support for the spirit of the Bill, with some serious reservations, particularly around safety. In the knowledge-based economy of the future, scientific research, innovation and skills will be important to the prosperity of this country. Any Bill that is aimed at strengthening that has the support of the Liberal Democrats. We have to be in a position to attract investment in the future, supporting the innovative technologies that have been outlined today.
As we have heard from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and others, we already have a very valuable space industry in this country. The UK Space Agency estimates that it is worth about £13.7 billion —or a 6.5% share of the global space economy. The UK space sector, Space Agency and Innovate UK have the ambitious target of growing that share to 10% of the global market by 2030.
If you look at market trends in the space economy, you will see that there are two major developments. One is large satellites in geostationary orbit delivering massive broadband capability, and the other is the very large constellations of smaller and micro satellites in orbit, also delivering new services such as broadband, connectivity for driverless cars, 5G and other “internet of things” services. As we have heard from many speakers, already in this country we have companies that contribute well to the global economy in both those areas.
It is clear that one of the major bottlenecks in the growth of the small satellite sector will be launch capacity, and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, about the market need. Waiting lists could become prohibitive. If the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is correct and there are 10,000 satellites lined up to be launched over the next decades, there will need to be capacity, otherwise the bottleneck will become even more apparent. A lot of the satellite applications which will drive future growth of the UK space industry require those satellites to be launched. In other words, the growth plans for the UK industry cannot be realised unless the satellites are there to create the data opportunities for the industries of the future.
So there is a gap in the market, and the UK could be a competitive alternative to some of the existing facilities and the potential facilities that are being considered. If a low-cost launcher programme could be put together, it could become a workhorse for European satellite programmes—as well as, as we have heard, a jumping-off point for what I call space tourism or lower-level flight.
As the Minister has already said, we are not the only country having these thoughts and considering such legislation. Other European countries have the same idea and are moving forward in this area. It is therefore right that we are trying to move swiftly and it is also right that we should move to the point where we have a flexible legislative environment in place.
The Government’s ambition is not to have a sovereign launch capability; rather, it is, as we have heard, to rely on the private sector to come up with the capital to build several UK spaceports. As my noble friend Lord McNally suggested, the UK Government should not get sucked into draining more from the money tree that we hear about to support this process; there are many other pressing terrestrial travel needs that require investment. We have heard of one example from industry of putting together consortiums. Does the Minister have examples of other groupings coming forward? What kind of support is envisaged along the lines of the £10 million that has been referred to, which seems a large number but also a small one when compared with other transport needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about the need for a timetable for approval, which is very important. What kind of time are we looking at? When we consider the example of Russia and building spaceports, we can see that it is a six to 10-year project. We need to know the lead time between when we cut the first grass and actually launch the first satellite or spaceplane. To meet the growth that we need will be the equivalent of creating by 2030 two new Inmarsats—the biggest company we have. Growing this industry to the size that people want will be a big ask and it is important that we get moving on it quickly. As the Minister, my noble friend Lord McNally and others have said, we want to get into a position of being able to drive those technologies with the data that we can produce from satellites. I understand that there is a proposal to use part of Innovate UK’s industrial strategy challenge fund to stimulate the adoption of services, which again would help to develop more space companies. Can the Minister confirm this and explain how it might operate in the future?
There are one or two concerns. Heeding the advice of my noble friend Lord McNally about not going into too much detail on some of the regulatory and insurance issues, I would like to pick up on a couple of points around licensing and insurance for the mega-constellation style of launch. We heard from one noble Lord about the potential for 1,000 micro satellites to be released in a single launch. This creates certain issues. British law currently treats nano satellite constellations no differently from a $200 million satellite in geostationary orbit: in other words, each satellite in a constellation would be subject to a licensing fee of around £6,500 and would have to be covered by its own third party insurance. All of that adds up to a huge sum of money which starts to become a big barrier, particularly when we consider how the US Government deal with similar issues. So I will ask in Committee whether we will have an opportunity to rethink the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Suri, said, we need flexible and appropriate legislation, and this is an area that requires some thought.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised some thoughtful issues which I am sure that the Minister has taken on board. I would highlight the question of foreign ownership that he mentioned—because, of course, defining the ownership of a company can be extraordinarily difficult. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that, as well as on the issue of offshore launches.
No Liberal Democrat spokesperson can ever stand up at the moment without mentioning Brexit, so I am afraid that I am going to mention it briefly. First, will we retain full access to the vital EU space programmes? Where are we on that? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the UK will continue to participate in Galileo and where will we be in Horizon 2020 on this issue? Thirdly, the chairman of UKspace has called for the UK to “enhance” its investment in the European Space Agency following Brexit—a point that was echoed by my noble friend Lord McNally. Our relationship with the ESA, which is not part of the EU, will be an important symbol of our continuing commitment to European co-operation. The Minister’s thoughts on the future of that and how we will take it forward will be helpful.
Finally, other noble Lords mentioned the free flow of talent. The Minister quite rightly talked about wanting to attract world-class scientists to this programme and it being part of a magnet. We need some assurance, not just in this industry but in practically every other technology-based industry and all the university sectors, around free movement of talent and people. To make the UK the most attractive place to work, it has to be a place where people feel welcome, needed and valued.
Another issue that again was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in his comprehensive speech, was the format of the Bill. He is right that it is substantially less skeletal than it was. My Benches have some concerns about skeletal Bills, not least because we feel that this may be the shape of things to come in other legislation. We recognise that this has been improved but it is not perfect. We would like to put that on record.
My noble friend Lord McNally and the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Balfe, raised safety. They are correct. I am sure that we will have an opportunity, given that concern and the importance of the issue, to come back to it in discussions with the Minister and in Committee.
In summary, the space industry is highly collaborative. For us to succeed in it, it has to have access to private and international funding; it has to be able to co-operate extensively with other states and allow the free flow of people and ideas around the world; and it has to be governed by a flexible and facilitating regulatory structure. This Bill provides for only the last of those three conditions. I hope that the industrial strategy will fill in some of those details. Notwithstanding that, it is a welcome Bill.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill is clearly regarded, I hope correctly, as not potentially controversial; hence it is starting its passage through Parliament in your Lordships’ House. The Bill appears to have had a somewhat truncated period for consideration and scrutiny prior to its Second Reading. The Draft Spaceflight Bill, as it was then called, was published on 21 February, with an invitation sent to some three or four Select Committees to consider the measures proposed in the draft Bill. No deadline for reporting was apparently given. Nevertheless, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee began its consideration of the draft Bill on 2 March, with the aim of reporting before the end of the Session. The advent of the general election rather curtailed its proceedings, including an evidence session with the Minister, but it published its report on 29 April. The committee received just 12 written submissions and took evidence from 12 witnesses.
As has been said, the Commons committee also wrote to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House, inviting it to consider whether the delegated powers in the draft Bill offered sufficient opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny—an invitation to which the DPRRC responded. However, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee commented in its report:
“Cabinet Office guidance recommends giving committees ‘at least three to four months (excluding parliamentary recess)’ to scrutinise draft Bills. We have had had just over five sitting weeks”—
hardly a satisfactory state of affairs.
On behalf of the Government, the noble Lord the Minister wrote, presumably to a number of us on, I think, 28 June—the letter was headed “Dear Colleagues” —setting out the measures contained in the Bill and the Government’s reasons for bringing it forward. I thank him for that letter. The penultimate paragraph stated:
“Given the number of delegated powers contained within the Bill, the Government has committed to publishing policy scoping notes covering all regulation-making powers prior to Second Reading”.
Along with, I presume, other noble Lords, I received an email late yesterday afternoon with what I assume are the scoping notes—it looked like 94 pages. If that is the Government’s version of honouring the spirit, as opposed to the letter, of a commitment given two weeks previously, it is not mine.
So we have a Select Committee not given anywhere near the Cabinet Office guideline on the amount of time to consider draft Bills and we have a Government who think that producing a lengthy document in the late afternoon of the day before a Second Reading constitutes honouring a commitment to publish such a document “prior to Second Reading”. Bearing in mind that the Bill contains some 100 individual provisions containing delegated powers, one of which is a Henry VIII power, I am sure that many wonder whether this is but a dry run for the Government’s approach to both the legislation and to Parliament in seeking to implement the decision to withdraw from the European Union.
The letter from the noble Lord the Minister of 28 June also stated that,
“further engagement with industry and others will take place over the summer and I intend to make more information available regarding the Government’s approach to secondary legislation in advance of Committee Stage of the Bill”.
In the light of what has happened with the previous commitment to which I have referred, can the Minister now give a firm and specific commitment on how far in advance of Committee that further information will definitely be made available, bearing in mind the Government could seek to start the Committee stage immediately after we return from the recess or shortly afterwards? Indeed, it might be helpful if the noble Lord the Minister could point out to his relevant government colleagues the extent to which the Bill provides for delegated powers and the commitments that have been given on providing further information on the Government’s approach to secondary legislation, and suggest that it would be better if there was a breathing space between the return from recess and the start of the Committee stage.
The Outer Space Act 1986 provides the current legal framework for the UK to fulfil its obligations under the United Nations space treaties, which require any UK organisation or individual launching, procuring a launch or operating space objects to be licensed. These licensing powers rest with the Secretary of State and are administered by the UK Space Agency. To date, as has already been said, launches licensed by the UK Space Agency have taken place overseas. The Civil Aviation Authority recommended that the regulatory regime for spaceflight activities be updated, following its review of UK commercial space plane operations in 2014. At the end of 2015, the Government published a national space strategy. Following that, we now have this Bill, whose purpose is to make provision to enable commercial spaceflight activities to be carried out from the United Kingdom for the first time in the light of the expectation that the global market for small satellites will grow rapidly.
The space sector has already delivered important benefits to the UK economy, generating a turnover of just under £12 billion in 2012-13 and employing at that time some 35,000 people. A 2016 assessment reported that the space industry was worth £13.7 billion in 2014-15, equivalent to 6.5% of the global space economy, and contributed £5.1 billion gross value added to the UK’s economic output. The UK Space Agency has said that a majority of income generated by the space industry, nearly 75%, comes from space applications such as the services which use satellite data directly. Space operations, such as operating satellites and ground stations, constitute 15% of the income generated.
As the noble Lord the Minister has said, the Bill seeks to create a regulatory framework to enable commercial spaceflight activities, launch to orbit and sub-orbit spaceflight to be carried out from spaceports in the United Kingdom, and for the licensing of spaceflight activities. Clauses within the Bill make provision for the grant of licences, the establishment of ranges, safety and security as well as liabilities, indemnities and insurance. The Bill will apply only to activities conducted in the United Kingdom and will restrict the application of the current legislation in force, namely the Outer Space Act 1986, to activities conducted outside the UK. While the Government have said that the UK’s obligations under international and EU space law, as it is currently practised, would continue to be enforced under this Bill in respect of the UK, where is that spelled out, for example, in relation to contamination of outer space in compliance with the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and covered in the Outer Space Act 1986, which would no longer apply to activities conducted in the United Kingdom?
The 1968 Act refers to a set of comprehensive standards applicable to the design and functioning of space vehicles, but these do not appear to be carried over into this Bill, which will, in future, regulate activities conducted in the UK. What are the Government’s intentions in this regard? On licensing, why does the Bill not clarify the differing nature and duration of licences for the different parties involved, and the need for certification? Is it really the Government’s intention that all this should be left to secondary legislation? Nor does the Bill appear to include provisions related to health and safety, environmental protection, local planning and other issues associated with on-site activities. Why does the Bill not do this?
We support the thrust of the Bill, which, as has already been said, has the support of the space industry, not least because of its focus on enabling commercial spaceflight from the United Kingdom. The major downside of the Bill, to which I have already referred, is the lack of detail, which makes detailed scrutiny somewhat difficult. It is in effect still a skeletal Bill which places a lot of powers in the hands of the regulators and the Secretary of State. Consequently, the Bill contains a very considerable number of delegated powers—as I have said, around 100 provisions—to bring forward secondary legislation in the future. While there is clearly an argument for having a flexible regulatory structure in a field of activity where there are many unknowns, there is also a need to provide for meaningful parliamentary debate and scrutiny, which cannot be achieved through secondary legislation in the way that it can through primary legislation.
The Government have, as has been said, made some changes from what was in the draft Bill in the light of the reports and consideration by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House, and that is to be welcomed, but the issue of whether the changes go far enough in meeting the concerns raised by those committees, and by others, is one that will have to be considered in more detail at further stages of the Bill, and in the light of further documents received from the Government only late yesterday afternoon by email, and further information that is to be provided by the Government prior to Committee. However, in its delegated powers memorandum dated 28 June the Department for Transport, in noting the concern of the DPRR Committee that some powers dealing with matters of significant public interest, such as safety and security, were subject to the negative resolution procedure, went on to say:
“However, switching these to affirmative procedure in all cases could take up a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time and might discourage timely updating because of difficulties in securing parliamentary debates”.
So much for the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The Government appear, at heart, to regard it all as a bit of an inconvenience.
I would add, of course, that the Government have proposed a compromise in respect of some delegated powers with a “first-use” affirmative procedure, with the negative procedure thereafter. The Government’s response as a whole will need to be considered carefully, but as the DPRR Committee said in its response, while flexibility and adaptability are key to the underlying technology,
“it does not follow that legal matters affecting the rights of the general public should be governed by considerations of ‘flexibility’; quite the contrary”.
My noble friend Lord Haskel is not able to be here today to take part in this debate, but I know he has issues in relation to the regulations for operations and safety and standards, and other matters, in what is a highly competitive market, with thousands of new satellites required over the next five to 10 years and companies planning commercial spaceflights. Without international collaboration on standards, there is likely to be little collaboration in business. Is it the Government’s objective that the standards of safety and security outlined in the Bill should satisfy all potential customers? What protections are envisaged against cyberattacks seeking to cause disruption and damage? Presumably, launches and landings become more vulnerable to attack, with potentially tragic consequences, with the move to digital systems. If the navigation system is open to attack, the results could be even more tragic. This does not appear to have been addressed in the relevant clauses in the Bill, so what reassurances or commitments can the Government provide?
The Bill refers to horizontal launches and vertical launches and establishing a new centre for these. Are the Government looking at adapting existing aerodromes, which would presumably already have some infrastructure for access, service and accommodation? What intentions or restrictions do the Government have in mind in respect of the location, ownership and operation of a spaceport or space station? In respect of horizontal launches, sub-orbital space tourism is presumably the major market and there are spaceport promoters interested in bringing this to the UK. Once members of the public are flying in a spacecraft, other concerns emerge, with the spacecraft becoming more like a commercial aircraft. Presumably, the CAA will be largely responsible for the regulatory environment in this situation. Issues have already been raised in this House, including by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, about the potential dangers posed to aircraft by drones—and, indeed, by the use of lasers—and they could equally apply with the public flying in spacecraft. Do the Government intend to address this in the Bill?
With a major increase in the number of satellites, how do the Bill’s provisions relate to international efforts to reduce the amount of junk? In some instances, there will no doubt be reusable spacecraft. How does the Bill regulate returning craft? Will this be controlled by the UK Space Agency and the CAA, and will they have to co-operate in this with other agencies? If that is the case, how does the Bill envisage this being done?
Finally, is it the Government’s intention to retain our membership of the European Space Agency, which is independent of the European Commission? If so, is that space agency satisfied with the Bill’s provisions?
I conclude by reiterating our support for the general thrust and intent of the Bill, but not for some of the lack of detail in it. No doubt there can be further discussions about the Bill prior to Committee, which looks as though it may not be until October. I hope that those discussions, as well as our discussions in further stages of the Bill, will resolve some of the questions about the lack of detail in the Bill.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s Second Reading for their, as ever, very informed questions, which they were quite right to ask. The challenge and the debate are welcomed by the Government and will help us strengthen the Bill. I appreciate the broad support that has been shown for the Bill’s ambition. I reiterate the point that I have made to a number of noble Lords, both publicly and privately, that we are looking to co-operate on all sides of the House on this matter with Members from all parties and none. I am always available to discuss aspects of it and I have written to a number of Members to make that point. I thank my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, who was sitting on the steps of the Throne earlier. I was delighted to see him paying such close attention to our proceedings.
I will try to address many of the points that have been made. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for her astute analysis of the UK space industry and her support for the Bill. On the issue that she raised concerning the comparable provisions to those in Section 1 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to promote the development of the space industry in the UK, I agree that the Government should recognise the need to promote growth in this sector. The Deregulation Act 2015 provides for a growth study to apply to functions specified by order. Statutory Instrument 2017/267 already lists functions under the Outer Space Act 1986, and we propose to amend this SI to also list functions under the Bill. My noble friend also shares the concerns of a number of other noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Moynihan also mentioned this—about over- regulation of this emerging market. This is a concern we are very alive to, and the Bill establishes a proportionate framework to support growth in this emerging sector while adequately balancing government and operator rights, the safety provisions and other factors dedicated to it. In exercising the powers in the Bill, the Government will ensure proportionality, and we intend to consult fully on all the secondary legislation required to implement these measures.
Engaging with agencies such as ICAO was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Through the DfT and the Civil Aviation Authority, the UK has been working as part of a joint ICAO/UNOOSA space learning group better to understand how commercial spaceflight fits in with the global air navigation structure and how regulation will need to adapt to the new industry. ICAO has not yet developed detailed rules on spaceflight.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also raised the issue of the carriage of nuclear materials. We do not intend to permit the carriage of any nuclear materials. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 allows for prohibitions and restrictions on this. There may be exceptions regarding everyday appliances such as smoke detectors, which routinely use small quantities of technically radioactive material.
We do not believe that the Bill engages obligations to produce an environmental impact assessment. Environmental impacts are heavily correlated with the type, frequency and location of spaceflight activities. At this stage, it is very difficult to ascertain specific environmental issues. For example, the sensitivities of a site cannot be known until we know the location of the spaceport.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised international agreements, and they were right to do so. We have put in place a number of agreements to enable commercial spaceflight in the UK. The type and nature of these agreements depends largely on the technology used, how and where it is operated and what it is used for. The UK complies with all existing space treaty obligations, and we are working to secure the agreements necessary to enable commercial spaceflight to take place from the UK.
On a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I should say that the UK Space Agency’s international partnership programme uses UK R&D to support international development. This supports developing countries to use satellite solutions for problems such as deforestation and disaster relief. My noble friend Lord Moynihan asked about the Government’s support for the development of this emerging market in the UK, and a number of other Members raised a similar point. The UK Space Agency published details of the grant process in February, including our processes for assessing proposals and the criteria we would apply. We have engaged extensively with the parties who submitted funding proposals, to ensure that our process is transparent. The proposals were naturally submitted to the Government in commercial confidence and noble Lords will understand that I cannot disclose details now. However, I can confirm that in line with the process set out in February, the UK Space Agency is currently considering these proposals with independent expert advice, and I expect it will announce the outcome of the process later in the year.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised questions around the European Space Agency. The Government’s policy to exit the EU does not affect the UK’s membership of the European Space Agency. The UK has a strong and healthy space economy with an international outlook. We have a long history of collaboration and participation in European space programmes and missions through the European Space Agency. The Government will continue to take an active role in European space programmes, supporting UK industry in its bids to win contracts overseas and developing our national capability to keep the UK competitive in the global market.
The issue of affirmative regulations was also raised by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. We need a proportionate approach for aviation. Section 60 of the Civil Aviation Act enables all aviation safety rules to be made by negative procedure. These safety rules are likely to be amended frequently. We aim to lay statutory instruments in summer 2019, and licences can be issued once these are in force.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of range ownership. Our intention is for these to be privately owned. Foreign ownership is not prohibited. A licence cannot be granted of course unless the applicant is a fit and proper person.
My noble friend Lord Dunlop asked me about the number of spaceports. The Bill does not restrict the number of licences that could be issued for spaceports. However, the decisions on licensing would be based on eligibility, alternative criteria requirements and safety standards. I noted his strong advocacy of Scotland, along with that of my noble friend Lord Moynihan—we have a lot of interest from Scotland, particularly given the rural nature of many of its locations. We are working closely with the devolved Administrations, but I hope that my noble friends would not expect an Englishman with Irish roots to adjudicate on this process. My noble friend Lord Dunlop also asked me about ITAR and knowledge transfer. The Bill includes provisions for entering into agreements with other countries, including the provision for knowledge transfer and to ensure that we can meet the ITAR constraints that may be imposed on us by the United States.
The issue of liabilities was raised by a number of noble Lords. We have taken the power in the Bill to cap liabilities. However, we can assure industry of our intention to cap liabilities only in circumstances for which analysis has already been carried out to determine the current liability cap policy under the Outer Space Act 1986, as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015. For other circumstances, we hope to carry out the analysis as quickly as possible to further promulgate our policy decision.
My noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised the issue of drones. Your Lordships will be aware that the department completed a consultation on the safe use of drones in the UK in March. We are considering the responses received and developing outcomes on this, and I hope the Government’s position will be released very soon.
My noble friend Lord Suri asked me about consultation. We will discuss the proposed structure of the statutory instruments and how this fits with industry views. We intend to publish a database containing more detail on regulatory functions including spaceflights, on existing international best practice under each of those functions, and on initial assessments of risks associated with each of these functions before and after regulatory activity has taken place. We expect that this will start the conversation on the licensing framework and can inform discussions with insurers about the level of residual risk, and therefore start to gauge the potential appetite for insurers to enter the market.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked me about timetables for launch. I am slightly hesitant on this, but we intend to lay statutory instruments in summer 2019. Once these have entered into force, regulators will be in a position to accept licence applications, which we expect will be processed in roughly 12 to 18 months. Please take that with a slight pinch of salt—these things can change and there are lots of considerations still to go through—but it might help as a rough timetable.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the policy scoping notes. Please accept my apologies that they came out late, but I wanted to get them issued before we sat down today. I appreciate it is very difficult to read a 94-page document in advance of this debate, but the policy scoping notes are not provided for discussion: they are our initial statement of intention with regard to the use of delegated powers and the need to consult on the use of powers given their importance and impact and the need to carry out analysis and assessment of criteria for determining safe levels of risk, for example. I confirm that it is not currently our intention to take Committee immediately after the holiday break in September. It will be a few weeks after that, subject to the vagaries of the Whips, and not immediately we return after recess.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that comment. It had certainly been my understanding that it was not going to be in September anyway. What is of concern—given the extent of devolved powers, with further information still to come—is if on the first or second day back in October, the Committee stage of the Bill is scheduled. What I meant by breathing space was a breathing space in October before we start Committee.
Lord Callanan
I am not in a position to confirm that yet. As soon as I get further information from those who deal with these matters, I will let the noble Lord know. I intend to work as closely as possible with all noble Lords on this; when I have further information, I will share it with him.
On the question of licensing and insurance for mega constellations, space activities are risky in nature and the Government may be required to pay compensation for damage caused as a result of spaceflight and related activities carried out by UK entities or launched from the UK. The insurance requirement is one of the provisions in the Bill to protect the Government and the public by ensuring that there is a resource to meet such claims. We do not believe that small satellites pose the same risks to the space environment. Further work will be undertaken on the insurance requirement for the different activities licensed.
The UK has played a major part in developing the main EU space programmes—Galileo and Copernicus—and space surveillance and tracking, which have supported the rapid growth of the UK space sector and contributed directly to our prosperity and security. It is a global success story, leveraging our best talent to deliver highly innovative products and services every year, and we want that to continue if at all possible.
The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Rosser, asked me about delegated powers. The Bill contains 71 clauses, 12 schedules and 100 delegated powers. This large number of delegated powers—I accept that it is a lot—is required because the commercial spaceflight environment is innovative, highly technical and fast changing. It is important that we have the flexibility given by secondary legislation to adapt to keep pace with this emerging market, as both UK regulators and the space industry develop expertise in this area. The Bill sets out the regulatory framework for a novel, dynamic and diverse industry, accommodating a wide range of different technologies. It aims to provide sufficient certainty and assurance to Parliament, regulators, industry and the general public while simultaneously having the flexibility to allow industry to grow. Early feedback so far from industry is that this flexibility is seen as vital. A rigid approach that offered limited opportunity to keep pace with either the development of spaceflight or the enhanced experience of the regulators would be restrictive for the sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about horizontal and vertical launch. He is correct: currently, we expect existing aerodromes to be most interested in conducting horizontal launch activities. I would expect vertical launch activities to be from a mixture of existing aerodromes and new facilities, subject to the strict licensing conditions that we have put in place. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about flags of convenience. Responsible operators may be attracted to launch from the UK, but our vigorous approach to safety should deter less responsible persons.
Lord McNally
Before the Minister leaves the point about consultation, there is concern in the industry about the machinery by which the players influence regulations as they become firmer and clearer. They want to be sure that they can continue to influence the development of policy, rather than be faced with a fait accompli.
Lord Callanan
I can confirm that we are in extensive consultation with industry players. My honourable friend was visiting Surrey Satellites this morning for discussion on various aspects of the Bill and its commercial operations.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who asked me about international environmental obligations under the Bill. They are covered by duties of the regulator in Clause 2 and under numerous other clauses, including Clause 8. We would not grant a licence if it were inconsistent with our international obligations. We have reviewed the relevant international, environmental treaties and obligations and the national requirements that may apply to spaceflight activities, and have concluded that we do not need any specific new provisions in the Space Industry Bill, but spaceflight activities and spaceports will, of course, have to fully comply with all existing planning and environmental requirements.
In relation to cyber interference, for conventional aviation we keep transport security under constant review, and we will do the same for spaceflight activities. We already work closely with partners across government and industry on restrictions between horizontal and vertical spaceports. I hope that I have responded to most points put by noble Lords, but if not there will perhaps be an opportunity to explore these issues further.
We have covered lots of vital areas and extremely important issues in this debate. Noble Lords were right to focus on issues of safety, environment and growth of the industry. I am sure that we will return to many of these issues in Committee. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their general warm welcome for the Bill, notwithstanding some of the concerns expressed. As I said earlier, I look forward to working with noble Lords both in and outside the Chamber to ensure that we strengthen the Bill’s provisions as it makes its passage through the House
Lord Rosser
Before the noble Lord sits down—I thank him for the responses to the questions raised—if he finds that he has been unable for very good reasons to respond to all the questions raised, and I will not confine this to my questions, can we take it that he will write in response to those questions he has not dealt with?
Lord Callanan
Of course. We have a meeting planned for next week anyway, when we can perhaps discuss these issues further. I will be very happy to clarify and give more detail on any of the points we have spoken about. With that, I conclude by asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Space Industry Bill [HL]
Monday 16th October 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 7-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 79KB) - (16 Oct 2017)
Lord McNally
“Potential impact of leaving the European Union on the United Kingdom’s space industry
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the potential impact that leaving the European Union will have on the United Kingdom’s space industry.(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must make reference to the following areas—(a) membership of the European Space Agency;(b) the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU on research and development and access to funding, including Horizon 2020;(c) the free movement to the UK from the EU of those who work in the space industry;(d) the UK’s participation in the Galileo and Copernicus programmes; and(e) the impact of the UK leaving the Single Market on supply chains within the space industry.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament within one year of this Act passing, and once in each calendar year following.”
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, it is always very encouraging, when one is in the position of the first item of business after Questions, to have old friends passing you saying, “Nothing personal”.
We are starting the Committee stage of a very important and exciting Bill. As we assured the Minister at Second Reading, we on these Benches want to be as helpful as possible in seeing it on to the statute book. He will be aware that a number of Committees of the House have pointed to what they see as gaps and shortcomings in the Bill, and indeed a number of noble Lords pointed out similar at Second Reading, but we are looking at a very exciting piece of a jigsaw puzzle that could be part of a very 21st-century industry for this country.
The European space industry employs over 230,000 professionals and generates a value-added estimated at between €46 billion and €54 billion. Key projects include Copernicus, a European system for monitoring earth observation data; Galileo, the EU’s own satellite navigation system; and the European geostationary navigation overlay service, EGNOS, which provides navigation services to aviation, maritime and land-based users over most of Europe. The EU also funds space-related research through Horizon 2020.
The space strategy for Europe follows the requirement of Article 189 of the Lisbon treaty for the EU to draw up a European space policy. The communications on the strategy identify four strategic goals: maximising the benefit of space to society in the EU; fostering a globally competitive and innovative European space sector; reinforcing European autonomy in accessing and using space in a secure and safe environment; and strengthening Europe’s role as a global actor and promoting international co-operation. Much of this work, it is true, is done through the European Space Agency, which is not an integral part of the EU but is linked to it by treaty. Nevertheless we thought it was important at this stage of the Bill to probe a little exactly how the long shadow of Brexit will be cast over the future of this important industry. That is especially important for these high-tech industries, which need clarity and certainty. “Build it and they will come” is not a long-term industrial strategy. Some of us are old enough to remember both Blue Streak and Black Arrow 50 years ago; we learned the hard way that for a country of our size and capacity, going it alone was not really an option.
Nevertheless, it is a real source of pride over the last two decades that Governments of all persuasions—the coalition Government of whom I was a member, the previous Labour Government and this Conservative Government—have given support to the UK’s space sector. The sector has responded in a quite remarkable way, with a turnover of £14 billion and exports of £5 billion and employing 40,000 direct employees and 1,400 apprentices. The UK’s space sector has tripled in size since 2000. The industry plans to grow to a turnover of £40 billion by 2030, creating 100,000 new jobs and growing space-related exports to £15 billion.
We are very supportive of what the Government are trying to do with, as I say, this small piece of a wider picture. It is a sector where collaboration and co-operation are key to success. Although, as I have said, membership of the European Space Agency is not contingent on EU membership, there are other consequences of Brexit that will directly affect the UK’s ability to be a world leader in the realm of spaceflight.
Will we retain access to EU research and development projects? How will changes to freedom of movement impact on this industry, an industry which exchanges talents across frontiers on a regular basis? Will we retain full access to programmes such as Galileo and Copernicus? Will we be marginalised in EU procurement decisions? If we leave the single market, what will be the impact on a sector where the burdensomeness of customs procedures and time-consuming customs checks could be fatal to the project’s success?
Our amendment asks the Government to make an assessment of the impact of Brexit under varying scenarios. The tragedy is that in many high-tech industries, such assessments are already being made and judgments being made about both investment and location, so our request is sensible in the light of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord’s amendment is excellent but I do not want to speak about that, but to make brief reference to the fact that on the previous Question I should have declared that I was a vice-president of the LGA. I forgot to do that, and I apologise to the House.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I just add one or two brief comments to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, quite rightly said, seeking to explore further what the impact of withdrawal from the European Union might or might not have.
At Second Reading, the Minister made reference to the issue and said:
“The Government’s policy to exit the EU does not affect the UK’s membership of the European Space Agency. The UK has a strong and healthy space economy with an international outlook. We have a long history of collaboration and participation in European space programmes and missions through the European Space Agency. The Government will continue to take an active role in European space programmes, supporting UK industry in its bids to win contracts overseas and developing our national capability to keep the UK competitive in the global market”—[Official Report, 12/7/17; cols. 1268-69.]
Those were clearly welcome statements, but I am not sure that they went to the heart of the question: namely, what impact could our withdrawal from the European Union have on spaceflight and the space industry in this country? Apparently, there has been talk in government circles of the possibility of leaving on the basis of no agreement at all being reached with the European Union on the terms. Can the Minister spell out what the consequences might be for the space industry and the level of co-operation that currently takes place if we ended up withdrawing from the European Union without any agreement? Perhaps he could also compare and contrast that with the situation whereby we left with what I think is known in the official jargon as a soft Brexit.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly made reference to the fact that the industry would like a degree of clarity and certainty for the future. Indeed, that was the Government’s argument for bringing forward the Bill at a time when we know nothing about the regulations, on which consultation will not take place until next year and which will not be produced until 2019. Presumably, if the Government are saying that the Bill is needed because the industry requires clarity, they will use this opportunity to offer the industry clarity on the impact of our leaving the European Union on the space industry and spaceflight in this country.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, there are 38,000 jobs in the UK in the space sector, and they are top-quality, well-paid, highly skilled jobs. Brexit threatens the majority of those jobs, both directly and indirectly. Although the Bill is welcome and in itself uncontentious, it does nothing of any significance to plug the gaps that are threatening those jobs.
How and why does Brexit threaten those jobs? Two sets of work are ongoing on which we rely for a very large part of our jobs in this country relating to the space industry; they are funded by the Galileo and Copernicus projects. The UK Government have said that they want to remain part of those projects but they have failed to make a binding commitment to them. The problem is that talk of a no-deal Brexit seriously undermines the Government’s verbal assurances on this issue. They need to make it clear that they want to buy into those programmes in the future—beyond 2019. Clearly that could not happen in a no-deal scenario.
Let us be clear that we do very well out of EU space activity. In terms of what is technically called “geo return”, we put in 12.5% of funding and get back 14% of spend. We are talking about very large amounts of money. When applying for funds, companies now have to make it clear to the EU how they will ensure that after March 2019 they will still have a base in an EU country. This is a new requirement. The impact is that those companies with other EU sites are leading their bids from there, not from the UK. Those companies without another base are obviously thinking of moving to another EU country. Because there is such a long lead-in time in this industry, these decisions are being made now or in the very near future.
The second factor is the supply chain, a lot of which is foreign inward investment into the UK, and there is some current rethinking on that—so more good jobs in the UK are at risk. A major aspect of this problem is the free movement of people. The industry relies a lot on EU nationals, many of whom are already leaving. But British staff, working in the industry, are also looking abroad for opportunities and we cannot afford that brain drain. It is essential to the aerospace sector as a whole that there is free movement. The kind of visa for highly skilled workers that the Prime Minister has already talked about simply would not suit their needs. They need flexible, long-duration visas because they require staff to be so mobile and flexible. Their needs are very much like those for the rest of the aerospace sector.
For example, as many noble Lords will know, Airbus has plants in Toulouse, Broughton and a number of other places. A technician might arrive at work in Broughton one morning and be told that he is off to Toulouse by lunchtime and will be back tomorrow or the day after. Airbus, as a company, moved employees 80,000 times last year between the EU and the UK. It has its own jet shuttle between sites. The kind of visa that the Prime Minister talked about does not start to tackle that problem. The perception in Europe is that we have already left. So whatever the Government’s good intentions with this Bill, if you hollow out what we already have in our space industry in the way in which I have outlined, there is not much point in this Bill. We simply cannot afford to keep losing such high-value industries and high-quality jobs. It is important that the Government persuade us here today that they have already taken on board the key issues that we have raised in relation to Brexit and our relationship in the future with the EU.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, very much for his initial comments and his general support. I understand that he will want to probe further and question us on the purposes and intent of the Bill, which of course I welcome—but I also thank him for his initial supportive comments.
The UK space industry is a global success story, leveraging our best talent to deliver highly innovative products and services every year. This Government want a UK space industry that captures 10% of the global market by 2030, creating 100,000 new jobs in the process. The Government are pursuing a range of measures to support this fast-growing sector. This Bill is one of those measures, and aims to put British businesses at the forefront of new space services. Another measure of our support to the UK space sector will be through our negotiations with the EU on future collaboration on the EU space programmes.
The UK has played a major part in developing the main EU space programmes, Galileo and Copernicus, which have supported the rapid growth of the UK space sector and contributed directly to our prosperity and security. We will work to ensure that we get the best deal with the EU to help support strong growth in the sector. I understand the link that noble Lords and the noble Baronesses have drawn between these two measures of support through this proposed amendment, but I do not consider that including provisions related to the EU negotiations will improve the purpose of the Bill or the support that the legislation will provide to our sector. This Bill is about regulation of UK space activities and sub-orbital activities and connected purposes.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, acknowledged, the European Space Agency is an international organisation, rather than an institution of the European Union. As I said at Second Reading, the UK’s membership of the European Space Agency will not be affected by the UK leaving the EU.
I was asked about the release of the studies on the impact that Brexit will have on the sector. Since the referendum, the Government have been undertaking rigorous and extensive analysis work to support our exit negotiations, define our future partnership with the EU and inform our understanding of how the EU exit will affect the UK’s domestic policies and frameworks. However, Parliament has voted repeatedly not to disclose material that could damage the UK’s position in the negotiations with the EU. I am sure that the Committee will agree with me that, in any negotiation, information on potential economic considerations was very important to the negotiating capital and to the negotiation position of all parties.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the effect of freedom of movement on the space sector. Of course, they are correct that when we leave the EU freedom of movement, as we know it, will end. However, we have been clear that there will be an implementation period after we leave the EU to avoid a cliff edge for businesses, and after we leave the EU we will have an immigration system that works in the best interests of the UK. Crucial to the development of this will be the views from a range of businesses, including from high-tech sectors, such as the space industry.
In the light of that information, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNally
“Impact of the Act on the United Kingdom’s economy
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the expected monetary benefit to the United Kingdom’s economy that this Act will bring.(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the assessment made under subsection (1), including the details of any companies that have approached the Government with plans to utilise provisions set out in this Act, before Parliament within the period of six months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed, and once in each calendar year following.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, in introducing the first amendment, I mentioned the good work that successive Governments did to give the British space industry a boost. I did not say—but it was in my notes, and I am prompted by seeing him in his place—that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, played a special part in that. The space industry made real progress during the time he had responsibility for it under the coalition Government.
This is more of an amendment to the Bill itself and it challenges the Government to respond to a simple question posed by the Commons Science and Technology Committee: where is the clear evidence that there is demand for a UK-located spaceport? We are going to a great deal of trouble to put into law regulations for these developments yet, as that committee mentioned, the Government have not quantified the financial benefits of a new regulatory framework for spaceflight. This is a probing amendment to see what work the Government have done on the concept of spaceports.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his kind remarks. I declare an interest as a member of the boards of Surrey Satellites, a space company, and of Sirius, a space security company. The noble Lord raised an important question. When talking about science innovation it is very hard to be absolutely confident about what the exact scale of monetary benefits to the British economy might be. However, we have a particular geographical advantage. If one is trying to launch satellites into polar orbit, launching over an ocean at a good angle is very attractive for many companies. With the Irish Sea and, even more importantly, in Scotland, we have the opportunity for spaceports that could be a good location for vertically launching satellites into polar orbit.
There is now a very lively race going on between several possible locations for spaceports. Norway is planning one and the Azores are working on one to launch satellites out over the Atlantic. I strongly support the Bill because it provides the possibility of the UK entering that competition early with, apparently, a range of candidates in other locations as well as the north of Scotland. From the Back Benches, I assure the House that there is an enormous opportunity here. There is currently no major spaceport functioning in Europe that enables space launches to take place over the ocean. It could well be that, as a result of this excellent Bill, the UK has an opportunity to take the lead in that.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest, which I declared at Second Reading, of living in sight of Prestwick Airport. I am a great protagonist for the interests of that airport. The comments that have been made are extremely important: we need to get a first-move advantage in western Europe. This is a highly competitive market and we have a real opportunity to put our significant skills base into effect in ensuring that we have early recognition and licensing of spaceports in the UK. There should be two. However you look at the spaceport option, there will always be the weather challenge. While Prestwick happens to have an outstanding microclimate and is highly suited to being the first spaceport with its nearly three-kilometre runway and a launch direction out over the north Atlantic, as my noble friend has just said—particularly for the launch of satellites, which is a very important part of this—the Government would be wise to look at licensing two spaceports in the first instance, not least because of the weather implications.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, it is gratifying to see an all-party approach being taken to this issue, both locally and nationally. In the context of Ayrshire and Scotland, not only have the Scottish and British Governments done a lot of very good work, but so have MPs from across the spectrum, such as Bill Grant and Philippa Whitford, and my noble friend Lady Ford, who was very active on this issue during the summer, as well as council leaders of all parties. It is important that they all recognise the benefits of spaceports and of the industrial opportunities around licensing them, as well as of outreaches in terms of employment opportunities and the links to schools and encouraging young people in the vicinity to study science. In Ayrshire, there is heavy unemployment in some of those areas. This would be an inspirational opportunity for young people to study the sciences and related industries. As I say, the advantage of making the first move is critical in the international global market and there are real benefits to local communities where the first spaceports are likely to be licensed.
Lord Callanan
I shall take that last point first and thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his support. It is unusual for someone who lives near an airport to want to see an expansion of opportunities for it. He will understand that, as aviation Minister, my postbag is normally filled with correspondence from people living near airports who seek to halt whatever goes on at those airports, so I welcome his support.
This amendment raises the impact of the Bill on the UK economy and seeks to provide some degree of assurance through the annual laying in Parliament of an assessment of the monetary benefits. Noble Lords are right to draw attention to the economic opportunity the Bill represents, the need to evaluate the market effectively and how we measure the benefits it will enable. As noble Lords know, the UK space sector is a British success story, a growing sector which continues to pioneer new technologies from satellites and instruments to new applications and services. The one area where our space sector cannot prosper is launch. The Bill will allow us to do just that. This legislation will create a safe and supportive regulatory environment for small satellite launch and suborbital flight in the UK. I am confident that the UK will attract companies and investment. Only last Friday, I met stakeholders to discuss the Bill and the wider space sector. I heard an awful lot of positivity about the Bill and the future demand for launch activities.
Earlier this year, the Government announced a call for industry proposals to establish a launch capability in the UK. This resulted in 26 proposals for grant funding from bidders wanting to establish spaceports around the UK, along with operators from the UK, Europe and the US. Through this approach we have demonstrated a strong interest in spaceflight activities in the UK from right across the country.
On evaluating the importance of the sector to the UK, the UK Space Agency and its partners conduct regular economic evaluation. The majority of these assessments are publicly available and published online. This includes a biannual size and health survey of the UK space industry. The emerging market for spaceflight in the UK will be included in future versions of this industry-wide evaluation and will be made publicly available, as it is now.
The amendment would require a report to include details of companies that have expressed an interest in carrying out spaceflight activities. Details of the companies that have approached government are largely commercial and in confidence. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would not be appropriate for government to report on these engagements or on these companies’ plans.
With regard to the economic opportunity for the UK, global small satellite launch and servicing could exceed £25 billion in revenue over 20 years, with an untapped European regional market potentially worth around one-third of this £25 billion. Nowhere in the world is this market fully exploited by a sustainable commercial offering. In addition, suborbital launch creates new opportunities for UK science by giving British scientists access to the unique environment of microgravity, as well as training, tourism and supply chain opportunities.
I understand the intention behind the amendment. However, I hope noble Lords will agree that we already engage extensively with industry to develop our plans and continue to conduct assessments to ensure we are making effective decisions. It would not be appropriate to duplicate information already collated and published in the public domain or to disclose information provided in commercial confidence to public bodies. I therefore hope the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment 2.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we shall now move to the nitty-gritty of what is essentially a planning Bill with lots of environmental, health and other matters. Beyond that, however, I was delighted by the two interventions. There is a need to bang the drum on this. It is such an exciting prospect, and although some may be keeping quiet about their intentions, entrepreneurs such as Virgin, Elon Musk, Professor Cox and others, tell us that this is just round the corner. I was therefore glad that the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Moynihan, took the opportunity to bang the drum, as did the Minister, but we have to keep up the momentum on this. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“( ) the effect on the environment and on local communities of activities connected with the operation of spaceflight activities or the operation of a spaceport as licensed under this Act;”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the Bill has been drawn up with the objectives and the future of the spaceflight industry in mind. There is obviously nothing wrong with that, but other interests and considerations also need to be safeguarded and addressed. The calls at Second Reading for light regulation and what is described as no unnecessary bureaucracy or red tape make one a little wary. Light regulation is what we apparently had for the financial services sector a decade ago, and we all know what some involved there got up to, which cost the country dear. One person’s light regulation and so-called red tape can be a weakening of another person’s protections and safeguards.
One of the areas on which we need to be satisfied that the Bill either provides or does not remove appropriate safeguards and protections is over the impact that spaceflight development as envisaged in the Bill could have on the environment and local communities. There appears—subject to what the Minister may say in response—to be surprisingly little in the Bill that addresses potential concerns in these two important areas.
The duties and powers of the regulator, as set out in the Bill, are geared to the promotion of spaceflight. Indeed, at Second Reading there were calls for a more specific statutory government duty to achieve this objective. Clause 2(2) states:
“The regulator must exercise the regulator’s functions under this Act in the way that the regulator thinks best calculated to take into account”,
with the first two matters listed being,
“(a) the interests of persons carried by spacecraft or carrier aircraft”,
and,
“(b) the requirements of persons carrying out spaceflight activities”.
There is no specific reference to local communities in the other matters listed under Clause 2(2), and the reference to the environment appears to be,
“environmental objectives set by the Secretary of State”.
Those could prove to be wide-ranging but, equally, they could prove to be non-existent or even negative, depending on the outlook of whoever is the Secretary of State at the relevant time.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, there is very little mention in the Bill of the environment. I am going to address Amendments 13 and 14, in the name of the Liberal Democrats, which cover some of the same ground to that outlined just now.
Clearly, there will be environmental implications of launching space vehicles and, indeed, of bringing the rockets on to site. At the moment, the nearest thing to this we are familiar with is when an aircraft wing is moved along the motorway. We are talking here about developing in rural areas, where there will be an obvious change of pace of life for local people. According to industry stakeholders I have discussed this with, the Bill does not sufficiently address health and safety and environmental aspects related to, for example, on-site assembly, maintenance and refurbishment of the launch vehicle and its payload—that is, the satellite. Nor does it address the storage and transport of launch vehicles or the issues of solid boosters and engine and thruster propellants. All these activities involve the handling of dangerous and explosive materials.
Amendment 13 would ensure that the operator cannot be granted a licence unless they have considered and minimised the impact on the environment. The Minister has made it absolutely clear that both the Scottish and Welsh Governments are very supportive, as is Cornwall Council. These are the areas where the impact is likely to be, at least in the first instance. However, we are legislating for all possible future spaceports, and whatever the supportive nature of the devolved authorities and county councils, one has to think of the impact on local people. Just because it is exciting and being done in rural areas does not mean that we can ignore the impact on the environment. It is already clear that there will be controversy—make no mistake about it, as this is going to be intrusive.
Amendment 14 concerns specifically the impact that the required high levels of security will have in local areas. Obviously, spaceport activity will be subject to very high levels of security, and rightly so; we would demand that. Let me give noble Lords an example that was brought to my attention. In north Wales, the Llanbedr airfield, which is owned by the Welsh Government, is leased to an organisation that wishes to set up a spaceport. The neighbour to this airfield is Shell Island, an enormous holiday camp that was established in the middle of the last century. It has 80,000 happy campers a year and employs somewhere in the order of 100 people. That is a big business in north Wales. At high tide, the only access to the holiday camp for emergency vehicles is along a path across the airfield. This is a very well-established right of access, but now, for security reasons, there is the potential that Shell Island will be denied the right to that access. In other words, emergency vehicles will not be able to access the holiday camp. This is not only an issue of local discussion and so on but a well-documented problem. This dispute may well be settled satisfactorily, but it illustrates the potential for local clashes of interest and that security issues will be of paramount importance and intrusive.
Amendment 14 seeks to probe the extent to which the Government have discussed such issues with the emergency services, potential spaceport operators and the devolved Administrations. It would ensure that the operator of any spaceport must take all reasonably practicable steps to allow emergency access for neighbouring properties. The security aspects of establishing a spaceport are glossed over in the Bill and need to be taken seriously at this point in our discussions.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, under this Bill the number one priority for the regulator will be, quite rightly, to ensure the health and safety of the public and the safety of their property. There is clearly a moral case for ensuring public safety but also a compelling business case. Safe operations will be critical to the long-term sustainability of the UK spaceflight industry. There are, of course, other interests and requirements which the regulator must take into account in the exercise of its functions.
On Amendment 3, I thank the noble Lords for raising the issues of the impact on the environment and the interests of local communities in particular. These are important matters which the Government have considered in drafting the Bill. Under Clause 2(2)(e), the regulator is already required to take account of environmental objectives set by the Government when exercising its functions. Environmental objectives here mean both the policy objectives of the Government and the legislation and other forms of regulation which are used to realise those objectives. This places a wide-ranging duty on the regulator and ensures that proper consideration of environmental matters informs the carrying out of its functions.
Under Clause 2(2)(c), the regulator likewise must take account of the interests of persons not involved in spaceflight activities in relation to the use of land, sea and airspace. This will include the interests of local communities affected by spaceport and spaceflight activities. A further protection both to local communities and the environment will be afforded by local planning processes. I stress that the Bill does not impinge upon or override local planning decisions. This will take account of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about emergency access to a campsite, which we discussed in one of our previous meetings. I hope she is reassured by that.
As part of the planning application process for any spaceport, whether a new site or an existing aerodrome which undergoes development, an environmental impact assessment will be needed if it is required by the EIA directive. The local planning authority will therefore already be obliged to scrutinise the environmental impact under existing planning legislation where the EIA directive applies. An EIA would also be required as part of any airspace change.
On Amendment 13, for the reasons already set out, we can be assured that this matter is sufficiently addressed. However, should we require further environmental legislation as new technologies emerge, the regulation-making powers in Clauses 10(b) and 67 give us the flexibility necessary to develop appropriately detailed measures which would supplement existing legislation.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, the issue of the significance or otherwise of someone who is exempt from the licence will come up later in a separate debate, but presumably, if someone is exempt from the licence, the regulator cannot apply conditions that have to be abided by on a licence because the operator will not need one.
Lord Callanan
That is true, but it does not exempt operators from the relevant planning provisions.
Lord Rosser
But it would exempt the person from some of the duties in Clause 2, which would be covered by the licence. That includes the things the Minister has prayed in aid in rejecting the amendment. Presumably, it does not include the requirement regarding,
“the interests of any other persons in relation to the use of land, sea and airspace”,
or,
“any environmental objectives set by the Secretary of State”.
The regulator could not take those into account when issuing the licence because no licence would be required by the person who was exempt.
I thank the Minister for his response, but if the Government really are determined to make sure that environmental considerations are covered and mentioned fair and square on the face of the Bill, I put it to him that they would not have used the phrase,
“the interests of any other persons in relation to the use of land, sea and airspace”.
I think they would have been a little more specific, because it begs the question as to how one interprets,
“the interests of any other persons”,
which does not say anything specific about the environment or anything else. It would presumably be left open to the regulator, who could be the Secretary of State, to define what they thought that phrase covered. I ask the Minister to think hard about that on the Government’s behalf, because if, as he said, we are all as one in wanting to make sure that environmental considerations are taken fully and properly into account, why not make that a lot clearer in the Bill?
The Minister referred to Clause 2(2)(e):
“any environmental objectives set by the Secretary of State”.
“Objectives” implies something fairly wide-ranging, not something that has to be abided by or adhered to. I have already made the point—which I do not make in relation to the current Secretary of State—that an awful lot will depend on the attitude to environmental objectives of the Secretary of State of the day and the extent to which they are taken into account. Different Secretaries of State may have very different views on that point, so, frankly, I do not regard the Bill as it stands as satisfactory—particularly since the Government seem to accept that we are all as one in wanting to ensure that environmental considerations are properly taken into account.
There are a large number of regulations still to come in the Bill. I know the Minister will say that those affect only minor issues and none of substance, but regulations have a habit of being extended somewhat. I posed the question as to whether regulations could be drawn up that weaken or take away any of the current planning and environmental protections. I also referred to the Henry VIII powers in Clause 66, which by definition enable the Government to alter legislation. I again put it to the Minister that, given the Bill’s current wording, environmental considerations could very much take second place.
I will withdraw the amendment, but I refer to what the Minister said—perhaps I misunderstood him—on Second Reading:
“We do not believe that the Bill engages obligations to produce an environmental impact assessment”.
He also said:
“Environmental impacts are heavily correlated with the type, frequency and location of spaceflight activities. At this stage, it is very difficult to ascertain specific environmental issues. For example, the sensitivities of a site cannot be known until we know the location of the spaceport”.—[Official Report, 12/7/17; col. 1268.]
I would have thought it extremely difficult to argue, as one could interpret the Minister was arguing on Second Reading, that there could be a spaceport site for which no environmental consideration at all needed to be taken into account, and that there was therefore no immediate need for an environmental impact assessment. That part of the Bill could be strengthened.
I hope the Minister will think long and hard about what has been said today, and hopefully he can be more positive during the Bill’s later stages. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, I rise to make a short probing amendment. Before I do, may I say how much I appreciated the excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson? I want to comment that in Ayrshire, we have none of the problems that she perceives exist in Cornwall, nor indeed in Wales. We have a tough and comprehensive security arrangement that surrounds and includes our airport. On the contrary to the noble Baroness’s concerns about tourism, I think spaceports will increase tourism. In fact, we envisage a visitor centre near the airport because there would be real interest in the adopted and adapted 747s that will be necessary for a lot of the satellite launches, not just from people involved in aviation but from the local community. After all, when it comes to security and noise, many residents of south Ayrshire have experienced Concorde in training many years ago and many military activities at present. The rare launch of these aircraft—we are not talking about a daily basis in this Bill and rarely on a weekly basis—will be of a frequency much less than the general public perceive and the noise associated with horizontal take-offs will be de minimis. Indeed, Prestwick is applying for only a horizontal licence. I make that comment in passing as I am sure my noble friend the Minister is aware of how ready Prestwick Airport is to move on this and how it would like to accelerate the licensing powers in this Bill so as not to lose competitive advantage.
My amendment is rather more specific, but nevertheless very relevant to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on bringing relevant aircraft parts to the spaceport. At the moment, as I read it, an operator licence means a licence under the clause,
“authorising a person to carry out spaceflight activities”.
It is the word “activities” that I have an element of concern with. This could involve companies involved in R&D relating to spaceflight activities, or bringing relevant aircraft parts and those companies involved in doing that. I am sure the intention is not to have a licence for all those activities. It is my suggestion to the Minister that as currently drafted that may be too wide. My probing amendment is simply to delete “spaceflight activities”, and insert,
“a specific spaceflight mission or class of missions”,
which is what I understand to be the Government’s objective in awarding operator licences. I hope I have been incredibly helpful to my noble friend the Minister, who will be able immediately to accept this constructive and reasonable amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
I pay tribute to my noble friend’s enthusiastic promotion of his local airfield. I am sure his comments have not gone unnoticed. I have certainly taken them on board.
The fundamental purpose of Clause 3 is to prohibit the carrying out of spaceflight activities or the operation of a spaceport in the UK without a licence. Launch from the UK is a new activity and we envisage that launch vehicles will be licensed on a per-launch basis, but the Bill allows for the licensing of a launch vehicle for a number of launches if that is deemed appropriate.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend raises an interesting issue pertinent to the future growth of the space sector—namely, the challenge of licensing classes of satellite together, as opposed to licensing each satellite separately. This is particularly relevant for so-called mega-constellations, comprising a great number of satellites working in concert.
The current licensing regime under the Outer Space Act already allows us to license a constellation of satellites that can be described broadly as multiple satellites of similar or identical design under the control of a single operator and which work together to deliver a single service. The definition of “operator licence” in the Bill is also wide enough to allow for the licensing of a constellation of satellites. Of course, while the Bill is designed to cover all types and classes of mission, a licence will be granted only if the regulator is satisfied that a licensee has met all necessary requirements, most notably those relating to safety.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I may have misheard, of course, but I did not hear my noble friend the Minister address my noble friend’s question about whether some other activities that should not need a licence might fall under the wording of the Bill because “spaceflight activities” can refer to activities associated with spaceflight rather than just launches. I hope I have understood my noble friend correctly.
Lord Rosser
I do not want to prevent an answer to the noble Lord’s question but if the Minister is going to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I want to come in afterwards.
Lord Callanan
I thought I had responded to it but I will reflect on the point that he has made.
Lord Rosser
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, moved an amendment to Clause 3 and the Minister went on to talk about Clause 4, perhaps because they are grouped together on the list in front of us. If the Committee is willing to bear with me, I have a stand part resolution down in relation to Clause 4. If I could just make one or two points about that, I would be grateful.
Clause 4(1) refers only to not requiring,
“an operator licence to carry out spaceflight activities”.
It does not refer to operating a spaceport. Can the Minister say whether the provisions of Clause 4 apply only to spaceflight activities—that is, the flight itself—or do they also apply in any way to the operation of a spaceport? Clause 4(1) refers also to international obligations, which the Minister has referred to already. I will read Hansard carefully to see exactly what international obligations he referred to in giving an example of the kind of situation in which an exemption would be given.
What role or powers will the regulator have in relation to a person who does not require an operator licence under the provisions of Clause 4? We partially dealt with that in the discussion on the previous amendment, and I think the Minister referred to later amendments and suggested that he would deal with the matter then since it is not immediately clear what powers the regulator has in relation to a person who is exempted from having a licence or what difference that exemption makes in terms of the regulator.
Clause 4(2) states:
“Regulations may make provision for other activities or persons to be exempted, either by the regulations themselves or by the regulator”.
What other activities or persons could we be talking about—which in relation to activities or who in relation to persons—that would be exempted from an operator licence or does the reference to activities go beyond activities for which an operator licence is required? Although I listened to what the Minister said, I am not quite sure exactly what he said about the need for the provisions in Clause 4(2) as opposed to the provision in respect of Clause 4(1).
Clause 4(4) states:
“Regulations may … make provision about the revocation or renewal of an exemption”.
Why is “may” there? In what circumstances would an exemption from an operator licence be granted which did not contain a provision for that exemption to be revoked?
Lord Callanan
I shall first address the noble Lord’s question. It is considered that the activity of operating a spaceport will not qualify for an exemption as the activities that will take place from the spaceport will have safety implications, for example, the storage of hazardous materials, the launching of spacecraft et cetera.
I shall give the noble Lord a few more details on the kind of exemptions that we are considering under these clauses. These exemptions are based on similar exemptions contained in Section 3(2) of the Outer Space Act 1986. The first exemption in Clause 4(1) is for situations under the UN space treaties where the UK and another state are jointly liable for a space activity. This provision allows the UK and the other state to allocate responsibility for regulation, supervision and monitoring activities between themselves. This exemption would be made by way of an Order in Council. The second exemption provides that activities or persons can be exempt from the requirement to hold an operator licence if the activity does not give rise to safety concerns or invoke the international obligations of the UK. There is also an exemption in Clause 7(4) that regulations may exempt persons or services from the requirement to hold a range control licence if the activity does not give rise to safety concerns or invoke the international obligations of the UK.
The terms “operating a space object” and “operating a spacecraft” in the Bill are drafted to be intentionally wide. Although this is useful and necessary to capture all activities for which a UK liability might arise under the UN liability convention, certain activities could be captured where there are no safety or security implications and the state liability is already indemnified by someone else. In such a case, a licence might not be necessary and could be overburdensome on industry. Clause 4 therefore provides for exemptions in these circumstances.
I shall give some examples of activities that could be exempted from licence requirements. The Bill provides that persons engaging spaceflight activities and range control services can qualify to be exempt from the requirement to hold a licence. Some aspects of manned suborbital activities could qualify for an exemption. However, the exemption under Clauses 4(2) and 7(4) will apply only in cases where the activity does not give rise to concerns for public safety or the safety of those involved in the activity. If there were any concerns that the activity would put people’s safety at risk, then it would not qualify for an exemption. To qualify for an exemption under Clause 4(1), another country would be required to take on all the international obligations of the UK. I hope that my response satisfies the noble Lord’s concerns.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response and for the intervention from my noble friend, who is exactly right. My concern was not the distinction between a specific spaceflight mission or a cluster of missions—as important as that is, which my noble friend the Minister addressed—but the use of “activities” in the legislation, which seems to go far wider than is intended in the context of issuing licences. It can mean anything from training programmes to a visitor centre, or any activity which is related to the operation of the spaceport. I note that in response to my noble friend, the Minister said that he recognised there might an issue here and that he was prepared to go away and think about it. I would be grateful if he would, because the wording here could be improved to allay any concerns about the breadth of the activities that he has in mind for the issuing of operator licences. In the spirit of his response, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, in moving Amendment 5 I will also address Amendments 6, 9, 10, 25 to 28, 30 and 31. First, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I hope has contributed constructively to the drafting of the Bill and to briefing the House on a number of issues relating to it. The comments I wish to make are strictly personal and the position taken by that committee is before the House in any event.
The House may recall that the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the draft Spaceflight Bill towards the end of the last Parliament and invited the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Given the importance and intrusiveness of many of the Bill’s provisions, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that some delegated powers be removed altogether and that others should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. I personally place on record that I believe that the Government have taken on board many of that committee’s recommendations. The number of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure has increased from four to 13, and two objectionable Henry VIII powers have been removed altogether—I say objectionable because they included one that allowed the regulator to dispense spaceport operators from any statutory requirement in any Act of Parliament, without any parliamentary procedure whatever. The Government have perhaps implicitly acknowledged the argument that a regulator’s job is to regulate compliance with the law and not to dispense the need for compliance with it.
Several provisions in the Bill allow the Secretary of State and the regulator to issue guidance, and I will concentrate for a moment on this word “guidance”. No parliamentary procedure attaches to the issuing of such guidance. The Government justify this on the ground that the guidance is intended to be user friendly, be detailed and aid policy implementation by supplementing regulations, rather than intended to substitute any legislative provision. My view is that where someone must have regard to guidance, or indeed must follow it, the guidance has legal significance—meaning in turn that some parliamentary procedure is appropriate, typically negative-procedure regulations. The fact that the Government say the guidance is designed to supplement regulations—in other words, add to the law—also suggests that some parliamentary procedure should attach.
In Clause 67 there is an increase in the number of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, from four to 13. However, this is not quite the whole story. Of these 13 affirmative sets of regulations, five contain what the Government have called a compromise. In other words, the first set of regulations made under the powers in question have to be affirmative but subsequent regulations are only negative. This is unquestionably an advance on the position taken in the draft Spaceflight Bill, but it invites several comments. The technique could be open to abuse. The first set of regulations, the affirmative ones requiring debates in both Houses, might only be skeletal. The subsequent regulations might provide all the real substance but they would merely be subject to the negative procedure. I am certainly not suggesting that the Government intend to adopt such a ruse, but I hope the House will judge delegated powers not merely on how the present Government propose to use them but on how any hypothetical Government might be able to use them in future.
Lord Rosser
I must say that I rather support the thrust of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has made. Later on, though not today, we will come to the amendment we have tabled about how regulations should be dealt with in view of the number of them that will be associated with the Bill.
I shall confine my comments now to the view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, particularly in respect of the issue in Amendments 9 and 10 where clearly there was a disagreement, with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee arguing that where there was a requirement to abide by the terms of what the Government described as “guidance”, and where there was a requirement that an applicant must do something of importance with that guidance for the regulations to be satisfied, it should in fact be subject to parliamentary scrutiny given its legal significance. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has of course drawn attention to that point.
The Government seem less than enthusiastic about going down the road of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on that issue. However, they did not actually address the point being made by that committee, which was the distinction between guidance that an applicant may take into account and guidance that an applicant must take into account in order for the regulator to be satisfied. Although I certainly support the thrust of everything the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, I confine my specific comments to that point in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report and invite the Minister to think again about what appears to be the Government’s rejection of it.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, at this stage, I declare my financial interest in GKN and Smiths Group, both of which probably have some activity in the space industry, although I am not currently aware of it. I associate these Benches with the amendments and the overall thrust, which I am sure that the Minister is beginning to get, that there is considerable concern about the exercise of delegated powers. As the previous speaker mentioned, that will come up in a series of later amendments.
I defer in my knowledge to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who is expert in these matters, but it is clear that we want to get the balance of affirmative and subsequent negative delegation right, and the excuse or otherwise that parliamentary time may not be available for the return of legislation is probably insufficient. Again, I hesitate to say this in front of the noble Lord, but safety is often dealt with by safety cases rather than a line by line, “You should do this, you should do that”, style of legislation. It does not require line-by-line scrutiny by government or Parliament.
With those points in mind, we associate ourselves with the amendments. We ask the Minister to review the Government’s position on delegated powers and are interested to hear how he stands on the amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that I was unable to speak at Second Reading on this important Bill, but I have had a helpful exchange with the Minister on the powers in it and his plans for consultation in future.
Following on from the comments made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I have a question and a comment. First, he argued for parliamentary procedure in relation to guidance. I would find it helpful to have a little more detail as to what sort of guidance is envisaged, so that we can look critically at whether any parliamentary procedure is appropriate. Secondly, I share his concern at the double barrel—having an affirmative resolution for the first regulation and a negative resolution for subsequent provisions—because it could be open to abuse and give too much power to the Executive on important matters. I would welcome further study of this provision, as has been suggested, before Report.
I am worried about the powers in the round—in this Bill and the Data Protection Bill—and I think that delegated legislative provisions will also become an issue when we come to the plethora of Brexit Bills later in the Session. It would be very useful, in this less contentious Bill, to make sure that we have the right provisions.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I thank my noble friend for allowing me the opportunity to explain the Government’s approach to statutory guidance under the Bill. I also thank him for his work on this Bill and for his role in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As he said, the Government have taken on board many of the recommendations of that committee, following its scrutiny.
The purpose of guidance is to aid policy implementation by supplementing the legal framework. It is not intended to circumvent this legal framework set out in primary or secondary legislation. The main benefit of the guidance is the flexibility to amend quickly and take account of changing events. For example, recently with Monarch Airlines, the CAA had to provide extensive guidance about passenger consumer rights under the ATOL scheme. This included what protections there were for consumers and how they could go about making an ATOL claim. This guidance had to be produced very quickly to support those impacted by the airline’s failure, and it is a clear demonstration of the flexibility of having guidance not made in regulations.
I should add that the approach we are taking under the Bill is consistent with that in aviation. Various standards, technical information and information regarding best practice can change annually. It would be difficult to keep up with changes if the guidance had to be approved by Parliament every year. There are parallels, too, with the approach taken on health and safety and other technical sectors. For example, in the nuclear sector, guidance sets out how people can comply with the requirements imposed by the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.
I assure noble Lords that the Government’s approach to the statutory guidance will be transparent. The initial sets of statutory guidance will be consulted on to allow scrutiny and comments from anyone with an interest. Where the guidance relates to regulations we will consult on it at the same time as consulting on the draft statutory instruments. Perhaps it might be helpful, in response to the questions from my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Neville-Rolfe, if I set out what we believe the split to be between the regulations and the guidance under the Bill. There may be matters on which the regulator does not wish to prescribe a particular way of working but wishes to help operators with guidance. For example, in relation to safety assessments, the regulator will be primarily interested in the outcomes rather than prescribing specific processes or methodologies. That is in line with best practice in health and safety where regulations will set out what must be taken into account and the requirements to be met in carrying out a risk assessment. Guidance will recommend a certain approach to carrying out that risk assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raises the point around the DPRRC recommendation on Clause 9. As I have already mentioned, the purpose of the guidance is to support the implementation. The recommendation in this case focuses on the need for parliamentary scrutiny of guidance given by the Secretary of State to the regulator. We believe that we need the flexibility for guidance to the regulator as well as for guidance to other persons. In aviation, for example, the CAA is required to take account of the guidance on environmental objects when carrying out its air navigation functions.
As my right honourable friend in the other place John Hayes said in his letter in response to the Committee, the initial guidance on this clause will be subject to a full consultation to enable scrutiny and comment from all those with an interest. Obviously this is an area of considerable interest in the Chamber, and we will certainly reflect on all the points made today. Given these assurances, I ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 5.
Lord Moynihan
I am very grateful to my noble friend for her response. She cites the case of Monarch and passenger and consumer rights in the guidance. Of course, that had legal significance. The point that I am making here is that, given the way in which the Bill is drafted, there are some areas where there is no legal significance behind the guidance. Indeed, it is very interesting that some of the provisions allow the Secretary of State or the regulator to issue guidance but do not require the recipient to have regard to the guidance at all. I cite Clauses 7(7), 17(3), 18(3) and 22(3) in that context.
Given my noble friend’s very helpful response, it would be worth just taking this away and making sure that the appropriate scrutiny by both Chambers is in place, and that the argument for guidance to have legal significance is taken into account, particularly in the context of her example about the demise of Monarch Airlines. She makes the very important point, as was made from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that safety methodologies are not what is being looked for; rather, it is safety outcomes, because safety cases are critical. I well recall, as Energy Minister in another place, that being the key point made in the Cullen report following the horrific Piper Alpha disaster in the North Sea. We are not looking here for detailed methodologies to be placed on the face of the Bill. Where safety is a matter of concern, we are looking for the appropriate scrutiny by both Houses to ensure that the guidance given has legal significance and that there is an appropriate parliamentary procedure in place to consider the proposals made by either the Secretary of State or the regulator.
My noble friend said that she would have a good look at this, which I appreciate. She will have heard the support from across the House to ensure that this was appropriately reflected in the Bill. With that in mind at this stage of the Bill’s proceedings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I shall speak also to Amendments 8, 11 and 12 in this group. The Bill requires, in Clause 9(4) on page 7:
“As regards risks to the health, safety and property of persons not within subsection (2)”—
subsection (2) is about individuals who take part—
“the applicant must have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that those risks are as low as reasonably practicable”,
and,
“the level of those risks must be acceptable”.
This set of amendments vests the responsibility for certificating that this level of risk has been achieved in the Health and Safety Executive.
I start by thanking the Minister for the time that he has given to talk to us about the Bill—therefore, I cannot pretend that this is a probing amendment. I for one, and the rest of our Front Bench to a degree, feel that the Bill is premature. The two-year gap envisaged between the Bill becoming and Act and the full emergence of the regulations suggests to us that introducing the Bill at a later time would have been more efficient and allowed fuller scrutiny on a more comprehensive Bill. That is particularly drawn out in the whole safety issue.
The bit of the Bill that I have read requires the concept of the risks to what I shall call uninvolved third parties to be reduced to “as low as reasonably practicable”. That is a very widely used concept in the safety world—a complex concept that weighs benefits against risks and costs.
I shall take a view of the benefits of the Bill. The Minister quoted the importance and value of the space industry to the United Kingdom, and I would not in any way demur from that, but we are not talking about creating it or not, or the space industry carrying on in future or not. We are talking about two capabilities. One is about inserting the satellites into orbit and the other is space tourism. I know that some other things are prayed in aid, but that as a generality covers what the Bill will provide.
There is no way in which we are going to be a first mover in inserting satellites into orbit. The Americans, Russians, French and Chinese are all in this business. The Minister suggested that there was a special European dimension, and there may be, but to a degree inserting satellites into orbit is likely to become a commodity, especially as satellites become smaller and less weighty. There is a benefit, but the benefit will have to be judged in the whole balance of achieving “as low as reasonably practicable”.
I find the concept of space tourism extremely difficult to grapple with in safety terms. The nearest thing we have had to sustained space tourism was the shuttle programme. There were 135 missions; two ended catastrophically and 14 people died. I doubt that there is genuinely much of a market for tourism which involves a one in 65 chance of dying. The Virgin Galactic programme has also been mentioned. This has so far resulted in one destroyed aircraft and one dead pilot. Broadly speaking, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act requires that an activity where an employee runs a risk of more than one in 1,000 is unacceptable and should simply not happen. I find it difficult to believe that, with the risks apparent at the moment, space tourism would be certificated in this country in the near future.
Although the benefits of the industry as a whole are valid, it is less clear how great they are for this particular capability. They would also need to be balanced in meeting the requirements of the clause that protects the safety of uninvolved third parties, whose exposure is nicely brought out in annexe C to the letter which the Minister was good enough to write to me and some other noble Lords. It stated:
“The current UK aviation regulatory regime prioritises the safety of the aircraft and its occupants and does not directly regulate the safety of third parties on the ground ... If the level of safety for the aircraft and its occupants is sufficient then by default third parties can be considered appropriately protected”.
This approach is clearly not sufficient in this direction, either in its outcome or in its nature.
Generally speaking, there are two ways of developing a safety regime. There is the accident-led way: an enormous proportion of our safety law—fire law, building regulations et cetera—comes from accidents from which we learn. It may surprise noble Lords to learn that aviation safety essentially has the same basis. When I was involved in the industry in the 1960s, a British-registered jet aircraft crashed about every two years. When I entered the profession it was dangerous, with a chance of dying of about one in 2,000 per annum. Before civil aviation had its many crashes, the military was exploring the edges of the envelope and having similar numbers of them. The industry developed a high-quality investigation regime and slowly learned from these events. It then put them into regulations and co-operation emerged, both in the industry and internationally, which has refined itself into today’s civil aviation regime. I am not questioning its effectiveness, but one has to recognise its background. It is about experimenting, having events and then learning from them. That is my first point in arguing that the civil aviation approach is not suitable for this industry.
Secondly, the hybrid launch concept will not be certificatable within the normal civil aviation system. Basically, you cannot certificate aeroplanes to carry rockets. One has to realise that a rocket is merely a managed explosion. Those of us who remember the early days of spaceflight know that when rockets go wrong they turn into explosions. Carrying a rocket, these aircraft will be highly specialised and certainly will not fall naturally into any certification regime. As the Minister’s quotation illustrated, the consequences on the ground of an aircraft with a rocket on board crashing will have to be addressed. The presumption that the airplane and its occupants are safe will not be proven to the level by which one can disregard the impact of such a crash.
Thirdly, in a hybrid approach, not only do we have to look at the risks to aircraft used to launch rockets, we also have to look at rocket-propelled aircraft. One of the many ideas used to illustrate the potential value of spaceports are rocket-propelled aircraft, which will be an entirely new area of risk. The Bill allows for vertically launched rockets, and these will need to be assessed. Therefore, I argue that the aviation approach is not appropriate or called for by the Bill. It calls for an ALARP approach, which essentially, as I have already said, balances the benefits against the risks. It is a forward-looking approach and is used in nuclear, the railway environment and safety-critical industries. To meet this requirement one needs competence in the ALARP approach. Our amendments argue that that competence is held by the Health and Safety Executive.
However, as important as the requirement in connection with the body certifying that the level of risk has been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable is the requirement that from the beginning we have a single point of responsibility for safety. For most of my career I have been involved in safety-critical environments. It is almost impossible to stress the improvement in safety whereby an individual accountable to his board or organisation goes to bed knowing that if there is an incident in the area for which he or she is responsible, they cannot say, “That was their fault”, because, at least to some extent, it is that person’s responsibility. The most that person can do is join other parties in their responsibility. The responsibility lies with the individual and the organisation. Therefore, I believe that we need a single authority and an ALARP approach as an integrated whole that can look at the benefits and the risks posed by events and the consequences. We argue that only the Health and Safety Executive, with appropriate professional inputs, can meet that requirement and has the experience and skill to deliver this judgment. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I associate myself with the intention behind these amendments. In preparing for the Bill, I spoke to a wide range of individuals and organisations involved in the space industry. They undoubtedly take health and safety very seriously and are surprised at the low density of detail in the Bill in relation to those aspects. Noble Lords across the Chamber have said several times this afternoon how exciting and important this issue is. There is undoubtedly lots of enthusiasm but, looked at dispassionately, this is a dangerous activity for those involved in it and others who are not involved but who live in the surrounding area or, indeed, almost anywhere in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out the potential for space tourism without people even leaving the ground as there will be viewing platforms and so on. All these things have to be considered from the health and safety standpoint. I have become increasingly concerned about the clutter in our skies. We are all familiar with planes but we are increasingly concerned about drones, and now we are taking into account space activity. Our skies are crowded and it is important that the Government set out a comprehensive, co-ordinated and truly effective approach to these issues.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their important interventions on the vital topic of safety, which we take extremely seriously.
Clauses 9 and 10 require that applicants for spaceflight operator and spaceport licences take all reasonable steps to ensure that risks to health and safety of the general public—as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, observed—are as low as reasonably practicable. Furthermore, Clause 9(4)(b) means that even after all steps have been taken to reduce risk to as low as is reasonably practicable, the regulator will not issue a licence if the risk to public health and safety remains unacceptably high.
The noble Lord raised through these amendments the question of the role that we expect the Health and Safety Executive to have regarding spaceflight in the UK. The Health and Safety Executive has undoubted expertise and a long track record in a breadth of issues and across a range of sectors. Clause 20 ensures that the regulator is able to draw on this expertise to inform decision-making in connection with safety of spaceflight activities. This is consistent with the role the Health and Safety Executive plays in other sectors. The Health and Safety Executive does not normally regulate by licensing or certifying safety. Instead, it imposes a duty on those that may create risk to manage those risks to be as low as reasonably practicable.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The noble Lord will accept that the Health and Safety Executive in the permissioned industries—for instance, nuclear, railways and several others—directly approves the operation of those industries.
Lord Callanan
I will come on to that point shortly.
I am confident that the approach we are taking is appropriate. In line with agreed health and safety practice, the Bill places the onus on the regulator to be satisfied that risks are as low as reasonably practicable and that they are acceptable. But equally, the Bill ensures that the regulator will have access to the expertise possessed by the Health and Safety Executive, where this is required. I stress that this is expertise we have already benefited from. I thank the Health and Safety Executive for the integral role it has played in developing this legislation with my department and the UK Space Agency.
I will share some detail on how we believe regulators will determine whether risk to public safety is acceptable. The approach will be aligned with best practices for managing risk across all sectors in the UK. We expect to use an individual risk per annum approach—in other words, in a given location, the risk of death arising from the activity to an individual across a reference period of one year. The regulator will publish a methodology for assessing risk which operators may choose to use. The Government are currently working with HSE’s Science Division—its research arm—to develop a comprehensive methodology for the assessment of risk to third parties.
How can we be assured that the regulator will have the appropriate personnel and skills to assess the safety cases presented by operators? The Civil Aviation Authority, the UK Space Agency and the Health and Safety Executive are respected regulators in their fields, with proven track records in regulating risky activities. That is why we are drawing on their relevant regulatory expertise for this new sector. I assure the Committee that these organisations are building on their existing heritage to develop their technical and analytical capability to assess the specific risks posed by spaceflight.
Although regulating and managing the risk of spaceflight is new to the UK, other countries have many years’ experience of it. We are learning from existing spaceflight regulators in other countries and intend to enter into agreements that will include provision for the training of our personnel and the sharing of information on those activities. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have answered his questions and will agree to withdraw Amendment 7.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, in the interests of time, I will withdraw the amendment. However, my immediate reaction is that I am not fully comforted by what I have heard, and I expect us to come back on Report on this issue. In the meantime, it may be fruitful to engage in further discussions with the Minister to see whether we can get closer together on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I said that the previous group of amendments was probing. We had had time with the Minister to try to understand the Bill but unfortunately we did not get as far as this area. Therefore, I will not attempt to explain the amendments in this group because I do not really understand the parts of the Bill that they relate to. With that admission, perhaps I may simply put a few questions to the Minister.
I think I understand that there is the concept of strict liability towards an uninvolved third party who suffers a loss. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that—we are moving forward question by question—obviously with the necessary caveats and niceties. As I understand it, the amount of liability may be capped. To me, that means that there is a limit on how much the operator—or the Government, who might be liable—must pay in damages to an uninvolved third party in the event of an accident. I hope that I have that bit right. However, I am not clear about who pays if the losses exceed the cap. Clearly, it is not the operator—that is what a cap means. Therefore, is it the injured third party?
It is very rewarding working in the safety sector, although it means that you get a bit ridiculed. However, we are talking about a TriStar with a bomb on it crashing in the middle of Glasgow. That is not an impossible scenario. Of course, it is not very likely but the unlikely happens—that is what the statistics show. Who would meet the costs of such a catastrophe? Even if there is no cap on the operator’s liability, the commercial structure of the company means that there will be a de facto cap because the company will rapidly go out of business without one or if it is uninsured. However, there will be circumstances in which the amount exceeds the cap.
Elsewhere in the Bill, the Government seem to have the ability to meet the obligations towards the injured third party. So if the answer to my question is that the Government will meet the excess over the cap, which part of the Bill provides for that? Is it an assurance to the uninvolved in society—us and the people around Prestwick—that where there is an event, their damages will be met either by the operator or by the Government? Who will meet the excess over the cap, or is society in general exposed above the cap? I beg to move.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for missing the first couple of words of his contribution and to the Committee for being slightly detained outside the Chamber.
Very briefly, the mission of these amendments, in the event that they were adopted by the Government, appears to be to create unlimited liability for the companies concerned in the pursuit of their business. Having asked a few questions of such operators, my understanding is that were they in an environment of that nature, the whole spirit of the Bill would be lost very quickly, in that no operator would undertake a risk of that level. I understand the concerns of the mover of this amendment, and the questions he has asked of the Government—who would pick up the liability?—are the right ones. However, the solution of creating unlimited liability across the board for the operator is not one that these Benches would support.
Lord Willetts
My Lords, I will comment briefly on this set of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has put the point very vividly. This gets to the heart of the economics of the space industry.
There are risks in space, as we have heard in the past hour in which we have been debating. First, probably the greatest risks are at launch. Not all launches are successful, which is why, by and large, launch facilities aim to launch rockets out over the ocean. I am sure that will be a relevant consideration when the rival claims of different locations, especially for vertical launch, are considered. I have to say that Prestwick is very fortunate to have my noble friend Lord Moynihan—if only every possible spaceport candidate had a similarly assiduous Member of this House to make its case.
Secondly, there is some risk in orbit of satellites colliding and doing damage, or one person’s identified satellite taking out someone else’s satellite. That is rare but it does happen. Thirdly, there is the very remote possibility, but it can happen, that a satellite falls out of orbit. In those circumstances they mostly burn up and it is a managed process, but a bit could reach the ground and do damage.
These are, thank heavens, all very remote risks. However, if the worst conceivable thing happened—if a satellite came out of orbit and did not burn up in the atmosphere and landed in the middle of a busy conurbation—serious damage would be done. These remote but potentially large risks are very hard to insure. Therefore, many of the countries that ultimately take responsibility as launch nations for satellites provide some kind of cap on the liability that a private launch operator would face. I very much welcome, therefore, the conception behind Clause 11: that the Government intend that an operator licence may specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability.
There are complicated arguments behind this. I can report from my own time as a Minister that I was regularly asked by the industry whether it would not be possible to reduce the maximum liability operators would face, and I was regularly pressed by the Treasury that the liability that the operators faced should be as large as possible. I suspect that those arguments carry on to this day and will never be finally concluded.
Lord Callanan
We have seen in the speeches the different approaches that noble Lords wish the Government to take to cap liabilities. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, it is to remove the provision.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The purpose of the amendments was to bring out precisely, in simple words, what the Government want to do. I am not hostile to a cap or to some government help, but I want to be clear what the Bill means. If I do not like what I have heard, we will come back on Report.
Lord Callanan
I take the noble Lord’s point and that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who spoke from a position of great knowledge on the subject because of his past work as a Minister, referred to the importance of capping and summed up the dilemma well. This is an important issue which has been raised with me constantly both by noble Lords and by those who are interested in carrying out spaceflight activities. I hope noble Lords will bear with me as I explain the provisions in great detail and go through what we propose. I somewhat doubt that I will satisfy everyone at the end but I will do my best.
The liability provisions of the Bill are vital but necessarily complex and I will take a little time to explain the Government’s position and why these amendments would not be appropriate. Clause 11 concerns the terms which may or must be included in a licence issued under the Bill authorising space flight activities, the operation of a spaceport or the provision of range control services. Subsection (2) provides a power to specify in an operator’s licence a limit on a licensee’s liability to indemnify the Government and other listed bodies under Clause 35 against claims brought against them for damage or loss caused by space flight activities. Amendment 15 relates to this subsection and seeks to remove it altogether. Amendment 36 is linked to Amendment 15, as it removes reference to the subsection from Clause 35. These amendments would therefore remove the regulator’s power to cap this liability to indemnify under Clause 35.
I should be clear that the position under the Bill is exactly the same as that in the aviation industry—that operators have an unlimited liability to indemnify government. However, satellite operators have previously raised concerns that such a liability is a barrier to operating in the space industry. Operators have found that the unlimited liability has made it difficult to raise finance or insure against the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This is not the case in the more mature aviation market. The Government have responded to these concerns.
The Outer Space Act 1986 was amended by the deregulation Act in 2012 and, since then, licences issued under that Act for the procurement of an overseas launch and the in-orbit operation of a satellite benefit from a cap, which is set out in the licence conditions. The UK Space Agency publishes the usual level of cap in its guidance, which currently sets it at €60 million for standard missions. Since the level is not set by statute, the cap can be increased for riskier missions. It should be noted that some activities currently regulated under the Outer Space Act, notably procuring the launch of a space object and the operation of a satellite in orbit taking place from the UK, will in the future be regulated under this Bill. Therefore, following Royal Assent, the amendment would reverse the current policy under the Outer Space Act—that the indemnity to government for these activities is capped. However, the current cap under the Outer Space Act would remain in place for such overseas activities regulated under that Act. As a result, there is a very real risk that UK operators may decide to procure overseas launches and conduct their satellite operations overseas under the Outer Space Act or a different regime altogether to avoid an unlimited liability to indemnify government. This would go against the Bill’s aim, which I hope all noble Lords support, to grow the UK space industry.
The cap on the indemnity to government under the Outer Space Act was based on many years of licensing those activities and it was well received. The costs and benefits of capping liabilities for those activities have already been considered and were subject to a full consultation with industry at the time. There was an amendment to primary legislation that was also subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Evidence provided by industry during the Science and Technology Committee inquiry into the Bill reiterated that an unlimited indemnity to government was a barrier to entry into the industry. The discretionary power in Clause 11 therefore allows the Government to remain committed to their current policy position under the Outer Space Act. However, it also allows the Government a discretion on whether to cap the indemnity to government for other activities licensed under the Bill, such as a UK launch.
I shall move on to Amendment 35 which would remove subsections (5) and (6) from Clause 33. The power in these subsections to make regulations provides for the capping of an operator’s liability to prescribed persons or in prescribed circumstances in an operator licence. The Bill therefore goes further than the Outer Space Act and provides a power to cap all of an operator’s liability to prescribed persons. This is intended to cover third parties or the uninvolved general public who suffer injury or damage caused by regulated space flight activity. Removing these subsections would mean that a regulator would be unable to cap this liability. As a consequence, the operator would bear unlimited liability, and as previously highlighted, operators have already raised concerns about managing unlimited liabilities. Most of the main space launch nations, including France and the United States, do cap an operator’s liability in some form. Having this power enables the UK to compete on a level playing field by allowing the Government the power to share the burden of liabilities with operators. There is a real concern that we risk being uncompetitive internationally if we do not have the powers to cap operator liabilities both to the Government and to third parties. Without the powers to cap, we may be unable to attract operators in the UK. The reason for conferring a power to cap rather than simply providing for a cap in the Bill is to ensure that careful consideration can be given to whether and when it is appropriate to exercise the power, as there may be missions where capping is not appropriate.
While we have assessed the cap on the operator’s indemnity to government for activities currently licensed under the Outer Space Act, a more general liability cap for space flight activities taking place from the UK has not been fully analysed. Launches are a new activity for the UK and we believe that we should cap the operator’s liabilities for this activity only if there is clear evidence that it is necessary to do so. That is why we have taken powers to cap liabilities for space flight activities on a discretionary basis under the Bill. We are already undertaking work on assessing the availability and cost of insurance to cover the liabilities. That work will inform any policy on limiting the level of any cap on the liability both to indemnify government and to prescribed persons.
The flexibility provided by the powers in the Bill means that the right balance can be created for each mission, based on the risks involved. The Bill is designed to ensure that space flight activity is as safe as possible in the first place, which will minimise any liability arising. Under Clause 33, an operator is strictly liable where injury or damage is caused, meaning claimants can bring a claim without having to prove fault. Regulations requiring operators to be insured can be made under Clause 37; that would provide a resource to meet any of those claims. Furthermore, it should be noted that Clause 33(5)(b) provides a power to constrain the circumstances in which a liability cap applies. For instance, we envisage that a cap would be disapplied in cases of operator wilful misconduct.
On Clause 34—the power of the Secretary of State to indemnify—we have previously considered clauses that allow for an operator’s liability to third parties to be capped. Clause 34 provides a power for the Secretary of State to indemnify a claimant or an operator for injury or damage arising because of space flight activities; that includes situations where an operator’s third-party liabilities have been capped under Clause 33. In order for the Government to provide such an indemnity, the injury or damage must be sustained as a result of space flight activities. To qualify for an indemnity, the person suffering the injury or damage must not have taken part in, or be connected to, the activities. Those people will be identified in regulations; however, it is likely that they will be the same people to whom the informed consent provisions apply, under Clause 16, and who are excluded from the right to bring a strict liability claim against an operator under Clause 33. That is because they will have engaged in space flight activities in full knowledge of the risks involved. As part of the informed consent process, such people will be made aware that this indemnity does not apply to them. The Government may only indemnify an operator where a claim for injury or damage exceeds any insurance held by it. The Government may only indemnify a claimant where the amount of liability has been limited by regulations under Clause 33(5) and the claimant would otherwise have been entitled to more money.
In most cases, we envisage that an operator’s liability, if capped, will equal the amount of third-party liability insurance that they are expected to hold. Therefore, an operator’s insurance should cover their liability. However, there may be situations where an operator has taken out more insurance; Clause 34 ensures that the insurance is exhausted before the Government step in. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the uninvolved general public can be compensated in the event of injury or damage, particularly where an operator’s liability to third parties has been capped. However, the intention is that the provisions in the Bill and subsequent regulations will work together to reduce the likelihood of injury or damage occurring in the first place. That will be achieved by implementing a robust safety regime and ensuring operations take place with appropriate provisions for range control and safety to minimise damage in the event of failure.
Lord Moynihan
My noble friend just informed the Committee that, particularly in the context of Clause 33(5) and (6), the Government are as yet unclear whether capping would be appropriate and, if so, in what circumstances. I hope there will be further clarity on that question before we make progress on the Bill, because although the Government may be uncertain, the industry is absolutely sure that to be competitive, early clarity on the Government’s policy of capping will be very important. If we are not to have a capping policy, then, to be frank, the Bill will never permit the growth of what will be a critical industry in this country, in which we need to be internationally competitive against other countries that have recognised that a cap, in the context of Clauses 33 and 34, will be vital.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes an important point. I emphasise that we are in listening mode on this issue.
Furthermore, there is also a power to make regulations to provide an upper limit to the amount of money the Government may pay out under these provisions. For example, in the US there is a limit in legislation of $3.1 billion. There is also a power to prescribe cases or circumstances where the power to indemnify either an operator or a claimant will not arise or is restricted. Examples would include operator wilful misconduct or where several parties are at fault that might have adequate insurance or assets.
In making any regulations under this clause, we will consult on how we strike the right balance in ensuring that the public are compensated while limiting the Government’s indemnity. For example, the regulations may set out what the Government will not indemnify in the case of operator wilful misconduct, but an exception may be made where an operator becomes insolvent and the general public would not be fully compensated as a result.
The Government will use their powers under this clause to indemnify claimants and operators in a balanced way. We propose to ensure that government money is used appropriately by exercising the powers in this clause as necessary to limit the situations where the Government will indemnify and limit the amount they will pay, as well as playing a role in the legal proceedings surrounding payment of such an indemnity.
I apologise for going into so much detail and speaking at such length on this.
Lord Willetts
I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said. Will the Minister share with the Committee any further information about a likely timetable for these consultations? Will he also tell the Committee how he proposes to inform us, in the course of our deliberations on the Bill, of the potential figures involved? This is a subject of considerable concern.
Lord Callanan
I am aware that this is a matter of great concern, which is why I went into so much detail about it. As I said in response to the previous intervention, we are in listening mode.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The Minister went into exactly the sort of detail we were looking for. I stress that I am not hostile to the concept of a cap, but I will reduce this to very simple terms. If I were to suffer—no, I am nowhere near that rich. If Glasgow suffers an event that substantially exceeds the cap, can it reasonably expect that the excess above the cap will be met by the Government?
Lord Callanan
There is no simple answer to that question. It would depend on the conditions of the licence issued for the particular activity and whether any cap was imposed on that activity at the time. We are looking at every launch activity, and every application will be considered on an individual basis.
To go back to the comment made by my noble friend Lord Willetts, as I said, we are in listening mode. I am aware that this is a controversial subject. He will understand the discussions taking place between different government departments on this issue. I will say more on it as soon as I can, but I take on board the concerns raised by many people and those of industry, which have been expressed to me personally and by many noble Lords this afternoon. If it is helpful, let me say that the Government intend to exercise their power under Clause 11 to cap an operator’s indemnity to the UK Government in licence conditions for the activities of procuring the launch of a space object and the operation of a satellite in orbit, as this is currently the policy for activities licensed under the Outer Space Act.
As I said, I am listening to people on this. I will say more as soon as I am able to. I am aware of the concerns. We are in listening mode and we will reflect on the comments made. In the light of that, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Is the noble Lord likely to be able to shed light on this issue before Report?
Lord Tunnicliffe
I hope noble Lords will agree that this exchange was worth while, because we have the record, which we can all examine. The needs or rights of the uninvolved third party in the circumstances of a very large catastrophe are still unclear as a result of that exchange. Perhaps we will have some conversations about that issue before Report. Otherwise, we may feel the need to table an amendment, because it seems reasonable for a citizen to expect, with appropriate caveats, that where the Government have allowed an operator to enjoy special rights of limitation—I can see exactly the reasons for that; it happened in aviation at the peak of the terrorist events, for example, so it is perfectly sensible—the Government would be the insurer of last resort. We may well come back to that point.
In the meantime, I thank the Government and all those involved in the debate because the record will clarify what is very difficult to understand from the Bill. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“( ) Within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must launch a consultation on whether an operator licence should specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability under subsection (2), and what an appropriate limit would be.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, having listened to that debate, I feel this amendment should perhaps have been grouped with it—I hesitate to criticise the groupers because I know how difficult it is. It was a fascinating debate. The Minister need make no apology about the length of his reply. It will be studied closely. Following it was a bit like following those things that come on your iPad to say that you have agreed, but I am sure when we have time to read Hansard—
Lord Callanan
Perhaps there could be a box at the bottom he could tick to say he has fully understood the debate.
Lord McNally
Yes, I know that every Minister wishes that was there.
I thought that the opening from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was sobering for us all. On the one hand is the tremendous enthusiasm and real excitement about the prospects of the industry, yet we know from history that there are dangers. I live in St Albans, down the road from where the de Havilland Comet was developed, launched and flown with a design fault. I saw a very moving documentary a few weeks ago about the Space Shuttle. Its final conclusion was that, from beginning to end, the Space Shuttle was never safe. They knew it, but because of the pioneering nature of what they were doing they took the risk. That is not open to us when we are legislating like this, so it is a matter of getting it right between risk and cover.
I tabled my amendment simply because we have been approached by the industry with concerns about the way UK law treats the licensing and insurance of small and nano-satellites. Current law makes it difficult and expensive to launch small satellites because of long licensing processes and large insurance costs. Licensing of individual satellites can dramatically increase operator liability. This amendment would allow would-be operators to feed in their concerns and work towards a proportionate but effective insurance regime. I beg to move.
Lord Willetts
I will add one comment to that. I thank the Minister, who has already given a full and lucid account of the Government’s intentions, which itself is very helpful. Another issue we should add, which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, touched on, is that historically we have been thinking about very large satellites and the risks associated with them. That is not really the issue for a UK space launch capability. It is much more likely to be constellations of small satellites, some of them meeting real UK requirements. Imagine there was a trouble spot in which UK troops were involved or a natural disaster affecting us—let us think of what happened in the British Virgin Islands recently—where you wanted to get a satellite over the scene urgently; small satellites are very likely to be used in those situations. They are often launched in constellations, and one other issue on which, again, I hope at some point we will have guidance from the Minister is whether each individual small satellite in a constellation has to be separately insured and licensed or whether, as we appear to be heading for constellations of small satellites, there could be significant flexibility in the regime so that constellations of satellites could have a single launch permission and a single insurance arrangement. If not today, I hope that during the passage of the Bill that is also made clear.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, directly: a constellation can be launched with one licence.
Amendment 16 is a further amendment to Clause 11(2). It requires the Secretary of State to hold a consultation within 12 months of Royal Assent on whether an operator licence should specify a limit on a licensee’s liability to indemnify government, and what an appropriate limit would be. By imposing that a mandatory consultation takes place within a set period, the amendment prioritises the consideration of the power to limit the operator’s liability to indemnify the Government, thereby eroding the discretion to introduce a limit only if this is considered necessary and appropriate.
I accept that consultation is a critical part of policy-making. It allows stakeholders to contribute their views on new policy that affects them. We have in fact already listened to industry views extensively—I did it only on Friday, in the latest round—and an unlimited liability to indemnify government could make it difficult to raise finance and obtain insurance. We have already had an extensive debate on that with the previous amendment, and that is why we have taken the power in this subsection. However, we need to ensure that we take a balanced approach between attracting operators to the UK by making it commercially attractive to carry out space flight activities and limiting the Government’s exposure to claims arising from such space flight activities. Our policy is for space flight activities to be conducted on a commercial basis but we have taken a power to intervene and cap the liability to indemnify government if this becomes necessary.
As I set out in the previous debate, we are already assessing the availability and cost of insurance to cover the liabilities under the Bill. This work will inform any policy on limiting the level of the liability to indemnify government. If a limit is deemed appropriate, the Government need to consider the level of such a limit and the consequences of bearing the contingent liability. We may conclude that a limit on this indemnity for UK launch activities is not appropriate in all circumstances. The Government have an obligation to use public funds appropriately. It is therefore not right that they should be bound to consult on setting such limits before the need to do so is established and accepted.
Furthermore, the current power also allows the Government to deal with each licence application on a case-by-case basis. The regulator will need the flexibility to decide whether a limit is appropriate, as well as what that limit should be, depending on the risks associated with each mission. Because of the variety of spaceflight activities that may be conducted from the UK and the individual circumstances of each operator, it may not be possible to have a specific limit or a methodology that works in every case for all missions. A flexible approach to setting a limit is good for both government and industry and, in our view, a legal requirement to consult on what an appropriate limit might be may restrict this. I assure noble Lords that we will consult on this matter once we have conducted our detailed analysis and have established the need to set a limit, and assessed the consequences of so doing. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, those who asked us to table this amendment will read the Minister’s reply. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“( ) Where an operator intends to launch a payload into outer space, an operator licence must include conditions requiring the disposal of any payload on the termination of operations where such a disposal is reasonably practicable.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, this is a historic moment for me because this is when I take the Liberal Democrats into space. As noble Lords will realise, particularly the Liberal roots of our party are based on pavement politics—picking up rubbish and keeping the streets clean—and this is my attempt to be a first mover politically on this by making it clear that we are the party that is determined to clean up space as well as go there.
That ambition apart, this is a very serious matter. Again, since I became involved in this, I have taken to watching the various documentaries about what is going on in space. Quite frankly, it is frightening how much rubbish is up there. It is not known who owns it, what the responsibilities are, how we get it down, and so on—at a time when we are told, and I believe, that we are only in the foothills of developing space in an economic way. There is a lot more going up there and the Bill needs to put responsibility on those who send things into space for having a clear idea about how and when they should come down in an environmentally friendly and safe way.
As of 5 July 2016, United States Strategic Command tracked a total of 17,852 artificial objects in orbit above the earth, including 1,419 operational satellites. Furthermore, more than 170 million pieces of debris smaller than 1 centimetre, about 670,000 pieces of debris sized 1 to 10 centimetres, and around 29,000 larger pieces of debris were estimated to be in orbit.
Space debris poses a risk to unmanned spacecraft, manned spacecraft and even the earth itself. We want to make sure that the Bill includes that responsibility, and perhaps create another new industry from this. On one of my viewing nights I saw that work was being done on sending up a kind of—it shows my age if I call it a hoover—Dyson to pick up some of this debris and bring it back safely. It is a very real challenge, which is worthy of consideration in the Bill.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I apologise for not hearing the earlier parts of the debate. Is not what the noble Lord is saying, quite rightly, another international reason for us all resisting Brexit and making sure that we work through the European Space Agency?
Lord McNally
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, was not here for my first amendment, which would have given him a good hour to go on about Brexit. But I am sure it is noted. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, as the Bill stands, there is no obligation to get down what you have put up into space. As my noble friend outlined, it is becoming increasingly cluttered.
In my mind there are parallels with, for example, Everest or the Arctic, where historically as a human race we have dumped what we no longer need because we are in difficult circumstances and we cannot retrieve it easily. Of course, the difference with space is that it is floating around. When we worry nowadays about drones—I saw a report only today about a near-miss involving a drone—we are increasingly aware of things that are in space, in the skies, which are not accounted for and not under any kind of official control or pathway. Clearly, there is a risk to other spacecraft and to earth itself. We take fly-tipping seriously here on earth, so why not out there in space? Amendment 17 would make it a condition of a licence that the operator has to take reasonable steps to dispose of a payload, as my noble friend said.
It is important that we recognise that the international group that regulates space debris is not an international organisation but an advisory body. Amendment 21 amends conditions that may be included in licences to refer to advisory bodies as well as to international organisations. Those in the industry are concerned that groups that advise on space debris mitigation have too few members or lack formal decision-making powers to be recognised in law as international organisations. We are interested in whether the Minister has had legal advice that these bodies would be recognised as international bodies rather than having to be separately specified as advisory bodies. The amendment would allow operators to take account of advisory groups, such as the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee and ISO’s orbital debris co-ordination working group. We are seeking certainty that they would be covered by the term “international organisations”.
Lord Willetts
There is indeed a problem with space debris. The aim is not to bring it back to earth—although I love the Liberal Democrat imagery of pavement politics and everything being recycled—but to knock it out of its orbit so that it burns up in the atmosphere and therefore disappears. We should take some pride in the fact that Fylingdales is where a lot of this debris is tracked. We have fantastic expertise there. It has always proved very difficult to get international agreement in this area, but the UK has a strong capability in disabling debris, and I very much hope that we will hear from the Minister that this is something that the Government continue to support. However, the prospects of any kind of international agreement in this area are, sadly, remote, not least because some of the technologies that are used for moving stuff out of orbit and disabling it are dual-use technology which can also be used in a very different way, so it has been very hard to reach any international agreement on the circumstances in which it would be used.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, in his introduction the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that he was taking the Liberal Democrats into outer space. I am tempted to observe that many of us believe that the Liberal Democrats have been in outer space for a considerable time. I look forward to my next Local Focus newspaper dedicated to the recycling of space junk alongside plastic bottles and glass jars.
To be serious, this is an important subject, and I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for raising the issue of space debris and the proper disposal of satellites and other payloads at the end of their operational life. These amendments illustrate the crucial role of licence conditions in ensuring the effective regulation of spaceflight activity, and highlight the importance of drawing on advice from all the relevant expert bodies. The UK Space Agency already considers matters related to spacecraft disposal—passivation, which is the removal of a spacecraft’s internal energy at the end of its useful life; and deorbiting, a brilliant word I discovered yesterday—and regulates this through existing licensing regimes under the Outer Space Act. Clause 12 enables regulators to set conditions on a licence tailored to the particular activity. Schedule 1 provides a non-exhaustive list of the types of conditions that regulators may attach to licences, which includes conditions governing disposal of a payload when it is no longer operational and requiring notification to the regulator when disposal has been effected. In addition, conditions may require compliance with any guidelines on space debris mitigation issued by international organisations.
The UK Space Agency is an active member of the United Nations Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee—a marvellously august body—and takes minimising space debris extremely seriously. Through this body, the UK Space Agency works with international partners, including bilaterally on specific issues, to develop and implement measures to safeguard the space environment and minimise the risk of space debris. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, space debris is a global problem that requires jointly agreed global solutions. This is why the Government remain fully committed to working with and drawing on the expertise of these specialist bodies. Through this engagement, the regulator will continue to shape thinking on the vital issue of space debris mitigation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to the UN Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. Outer space is a global resource shared by everyone but owned by nobody. The UN has a unique role in developing best practice measures to protect the space environment for future generations. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee plays a critical role in helping to formulate technical policy free of the political influence in the UN. The committee, as a grouping of space agencies, is able to develop scientific consensus on debris issues and present them to the UN for endorsement and application by member states. I assure the Committee that it is the Government’s intention to continue to require appropriate disposal of obsolete payloads in accordance with international guidelines. I hope that in the light of those assurances the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moynihan
“( ) The regulator must sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the CAA confirming the conditions under which spaceflight would cease to be deemed experimental and would be considered commercial.”
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 19, for the sake of the record I shall say that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has on two occasions referred to Glasgow as a possible site for a tragedy as a consequence of a spacecraft crashing. I wish to make it absolutely clear for the record that the proposal in the Prestwick application is to head north-west, straight out to sea. The sea is no more than two miles from the end of a three-kilometre runway. Prestwick Airport would be applying for a licence, not Glasgow Airport.
That said, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will support what I am going to argue on behalf of the European Aviation Safety Agency’s relationship to us in the UK. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee argued that it is not clear whether the new regulatory framework proposed by the Government would apply to commercial spaceflight operations or whether they would be subject to European Aviation Safety Agency regulation. The Government have argued that the European Aviation Safety Agency’s exemption of experimental aircraft from its regulations means that spaceplanes are not subject to EASA regulations and would therefore come under the provisions of the Bill we are considering.
The Science and Technology Committee argued, however, that it was not clear whether this exemption would be sufficient, particularly if spaceplanes were deemed to be operating on a commercial rather than an experimental basis. The committee recommended that the UK seek to establish a memorandum of understanding with the EASA to clarify the point.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for making an important point and for tabling this amendment on what is an interesting subject. I start by assuring him that the Government have had a very constructive discussion with the European Aviation Safety Agency on our proposals to regulate suborbital spaceplanes in the UK.
The outcome of this dialogue has resulted in mutual agreement that suborbital spaceplanes are considered to be aircraft and therefore EU aviation legislation should apply to them. EU Regulation 216/2008, known as the EASA basic regulation, exempts from its scope those,
“aircraft specifically designed or modified for research, experimental or scientific purposes, and likely to be produced in very limited numbers”.
In discussions about revising the text of the EASA basic regulation, the European Commission agreed that, while spaceplanes are in the developmental stage, spaceplane operations would continue to fall under this exemption. The context of the assurance was that member states should be able to legislate for commercial suborbital spaceplane operations that launch and return to the same spaceport now, before the EASA has had time to make EU-wide rules. The Commission has also confirmed that neither commercial use nor having paying passengers in itself precludes a spaceplane from falling within the exemption.
The UK recognises—we are in agreement with the EASA on this point—that as soon as the suborbital operation starts and finishes in two separate locations, it may be considered to be public transport and subject to the full weight of European aviation rules. Although the Government’s intention is to continue to work closely with the EASA whatever the outcome of EU negotiations, we need to ensure that in doing so the UK retains a degree of flexibility to develop its own regulatory framework, drawing on the best practice from those states that already conduct commercial launches, such as the US and India, as well as from other European states.
Currently there are no European-wide regulations for spaceplanes and spaceports. We are leading by example by creating this comprehensive regulatory framework in the UK. This should have considerable business benefit for the UK. But this will also benefit the EU, and the EASA recognises that this will help inform the development of any future European regulatory framework. The Government have agreed with the EASA to work with other European states to develop common principles for regulation for suborbital operations. However, in doing so, the Government will ensure that the UK is not put in a position, as a result of any change in our future relationship with the EASA, where the EASA is handed too much control, or worse a veto, over the development of the UK space sector.
I hope I have provided the reassurance that my noble friend is looking for and that in the light of that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan
That was an outstanding and exceptionally helpful answer from my noble friend on this important subject. As long as the mutual agreement has been documented in the way that he has suggested, I am completely happy to withdraw the amendment. His assessment of the current position of our relationship with the EASA was exceptionally helpful to the House, and I thank him for it.
Lord Rosser
“( ) The regulator may not consent to the transfer of a licence under subsection (1) unless the provisions in section 8(3) are met with regard to the licensee to which the licence will be transferred.”
Lord Rosser
Clause 14(1) states:
“A licence under this Act may be transferred with the written consent of the regulator”.
The Bill then appears to say little more of substance on this issue. It does not appear to set any considerations the regulator has to take into account before giving such written consent, nor does it appear to say to whom or to what a licence can be transferred or what licences are or are not able to be transferred. Clause 8(3) says:
“The regulator may not grant an application for a licence under this Act unless satisfied that … the applicant has the financial and technical resources to do the things authorised by the licence, and is otherwise a fit and proper person to do them”,
or that,
“the persons who are expected to do, on the applicant’s behalf, any of the things authorised by the licence are fit and proper persons to do them”.
Amendment 22 seeks to ensure that the provisions of Clause 8(3) will also apply to the regulator when deciding whether to give written consent to the transfer of the licence.
An argument could be made for saying that the provisions of Clause 8(2) should also be included in this amendment, since presumably one would want the regulator to be satisfied in agreeing to transfer a licence that it would not impair national security, that it would be consistent with our international obligations and that it would not be,
“contrary to the national interest”.
However, this is Committee stage and I will wait to hear the Government’s response to the amendment as it stands.
On a more general point about the transfer of a licence, can the Minister set out for the record the circumstances in which a transfer might be considered necessary and those in which the Government would not expect written consent to be agreed? Finally, for the granting of a licence, the consent of the Secretary of State will also be required under Clause 8(4) if they are not the regulator granting the licence. That provision does not appear to apply if a licence is being transferred. If this is the case, why is that so?
Lord Fox
My Lords, I will be very brief. We welcome this probing amendment because this issue is very important. It is analogous in one sense to the potential for flagging out a particular enterprise. If the regulator is minded to allow a transfer of licence, what legal basis would there be for any enforcement of those licence agreements once they cease to be within the domain of this country? The second point is on the role of takeovers and acquisitions, where companies that own a licence and are within the remit of the United Kingdom are acquired and move beyond these shores for regulatory purposes. Perhaps the Minister can include those points in his answer as well.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, Clause 14 enables a licensee to transfer their licence to another party, provided that the regulator has given written consent. This provision enables a new body or company to take over the licence without starting a licence application afresh. In addition, the Bill requires that a licence holder has the necessary financial and technical resources, and that they are fit and proper persons, to do the things authorised by the licence.
Amendment 22 would ensure that the regulator would need to be satisfied that the new licensee met the requirements under Clause 8(3) before consenting to a transfer. I can confirm that it is our intention that the regulator will need to do this. Where the regulator is appointed under Clause 15, Clause 14(5)(c) requires them to consult the Secretary of State before consenting to a transfer. Thus the Secretary of State can ensure that they are satisfied that the new licensee meets the requirements under Clause 8(3).
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why the power to transfer a licence is necessary. The power avoids the need for wasteful bureaucracy that could affect businesses and local communities. For example, where a spaceport licence has been issued, it should not be necessary to demonstrate the suitability of the site again just because of a change of operator. However, the regulator would need to be content that the new operator met the eligibility criteria under Clause 8. Both the regulator and the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that the transfer of a licence was appropriate, ensuring that there were the proper checks and balances in the system if that occurred.
I am confident that the amendment is not necessary but I will reflect on whether it is appropriate to make our intentions explicit in the Bill. On those grounds, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his valuable contribution to this debate. The Minister has indicated—at least I think this is a fair reflection of what he said—that he will reflect further on this issue. I would certainly have thought that if the transfer under Clause 8(3) will apply, it would be helpful if it said so. One would assume that the provisions of Clause 8(2) would also apply—that is, the parts about not impairing national security, being consistent with international obligations and not being contrary to the national interest. I take it from what the Minister said that he will indicate to us before Report whether the Government intend to make any amendments in the light of the amendment that I have moved.
I have a question on one point that I asked about at the end, which I appreciate is mainly a point of detail. For the granting of a licence, the consent of the Secretary of State is also required under Clause 8(4). If the regulator granting the licence is not the Secretary of State, is the intention that that would also apply in relation to a licence being transferred or is the Minister likely to come back on that when he has reflected further on the issues raised during this debate?
Lord Callanan
I will reflect on that and come back to the noble Lord on it.
Baroness Randerson
“( ) Before regulations are made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining—(a) the functions the regulations will confer on the appointed person;(b) the appointed person’s capacity to undertake the proposed functions;(c) whether additional funds should be made available to ensure the appointed person can undertake the proposed functions; and (d) whether the Government is intending to confer in the near future any other functions, separate to those relating to this Act, that may affect the appointed person’s capacity to exercise the functions proposed in the regulations.”
Baroness Randerson
This amendment relates to the capacity and resourcing of the regulator. One assumes that it is to be the CAA because the Explanatory Notes indicate it will be, but they allow a fallback position where another body could be created. I invite the Minister to confirm that the Government have the CAA in mind.
My concern is that the CAA seems to be increasingly the maid of all work, which will undoubtedly have capacity and resourcing implications for that body. After Brexit, the duties of the CAA in relation to what one might call mainstream aviation will undoubtedly increase. The issue of drones will add to its duties. A couple of weeks ago, the failure of Monarch Airlines reminded us that the CAA has a very important role relating to such emergencies. One day we envisage the CAA bringing people back from their holidays in Portugal and the next day, or indeed the very same day, it is concerned about trips in outer space. So the body is large, flexible and very broad in its involvement. For that reason, if the Government plan to pass most if not all of the regulatory functions in the Bill to the Civil Aviation Authority, then we are concerned about whether they also plan to add to its capacity and expertise. This is very much a probing amendment to ask the Government whether their assessment is that the CAA currently has the breadth of expertise required and will simply need additional resources, or whether there will be a need to recast the body and take a comprehensive look at its role in future.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. It is quite right to seek clarity on who will regulate this new spaceflight market and their capacity and resources to do so. Commercial spaceflight from the UK is in its very early stages and we want to be able to draw on relevant regulatory expertise across the UK for this new burgeoning sector. The Secretary of State is the default regulatory authority under the Bill. It is our intention that the UK Space Agency perform regulatory functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. The UK Space Agency already licenses the procurement of satellite launches from other countries as well as satellite operations from the UK. We intend that the UK Space Agency will regulate all the vertically launched rockets covered by the Bill and other space activities, including the launch and operation of satellites into space orbit. The UK Space Agency will also license and regulate associated vertical-launch spaceports and range-control services for launch to orbit.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, it is our intention to use Clause 15 to appoint the Civil Aviation Authority to regulate suborbital activities and horizontal-launch spaceports. These are likely to take place from specially adapted existing airports, and that will enable us to draw on the CAA’s rich heritage and expertise. The CAA and the UK Space Agency are proven regulators in their respective fields. I assure the House that both organisations are building on this heritage and developing their spaceflight expertise, including learning from existing spaceflight regulators in other countries. Clause 61 enables both organisations to put in place charging regimes to cover their regulatory costs—for example, for assessing and issuing licences, ongoing monitoring and providing advice and assistance. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question about the appropriate resources.
I am confident in our planned assignment of regulatory functions to the UK Space Agency and the CAA, and that both will have the resources to fulfil their regulatory functions following the enactment of the Bill and regulations made under it. I am confident in our planned assignment of UK regulatory functions to the UK Space Agency and the Civil Aviation Authority and that both will have resources to fulfil their regulatory functions following enactment of the Bill and regulations made under it.
Lord Fox
I have a question on the previous point about the CAA clearly being ready to embrace this new responsibility. We would expect a body such as the CAA to be enthusiastic to have its remit expanded; we would not expect it to say, “Please take this somewhere else”. Have the Government sought an independent viewpoint on the appropriateness and scale of the upgrading of the skills that will be required within the CAA?
Lord Callanan
We are confident that the expertise in and knowledge of regulating aviation in the CAA is sufficient for this purpose. The CAA has a worldwide reputation for the comprehensiveness of its approach and expertise, so it will be able to fulfil these functions very well and there is no need to go elsewhere.
I shall directly answer the noble Baroness’s question: if we know that we are going to appoint the CAA to do this, why do we not specify it in the Bill? We believe that it is more appropriate to set out functions of appointed persons in delegated legislation, as the necessary limitations and conditions would be too lengthy to include in primary legislation. Further, as the industry evolves, the Government may choose to adapt the regulatory approach. The current approach allows this flexibility while ensuring that the appropriate level of oversight is maintained by the Secretary of State. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for his response. I will read Hansard carefully, because I think that there is still an issue about the level of resources. It may be that capacity in terms of breadth of expertise is established, but I remain to be convinced about the level of resources that the Government are willing to commit to allow the CAA to do its job effectively. It was absolutely clear in the past few weeks that the CAA is working extraordinarily hard and at the limits of its current capacity, so if we are adding responsibilities to it, we need to be reassured that it can do this job well. With those words, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
“Report on the duties of the regulator and appointed persons
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay a report before Parliament detailing the responsibilities and duties of the regulator, any appointed person or persons and any other Government department or agency responsible for regulating spaceflight.(2) The report under subsection (1) must specify the legal basis under which the regulator, any appointed person or persons and any Government department or agency exercise their powers.”
Lord Fox
My Lords, my noble friend Lord McNally has appointed me as his mouthpiece on earth for this amendment, by which we seek a sort of legal air traffic control ruling from the Government. The fact that I am slightly confused about which Act applies where is probably no surprise, but the fact that leading figures in the industry are scratching their heads probably leads to the conclusion that greater clarity is needed about which Act covers which activities. There is definitely uncertainty about what will be governed under the Bill and what will fall under the Outer Space Act 1986.
We were alerted by the Royal Aeronautical Society about its concerns about which Act applies to non-UK activities and which to UK activities. My assumption—I hope that the Minister can confirm this—is that if the launch is from this country, the Bill covers that activity; in the event that it is a space activity launched from elsewhere, the OSA 1986 covers it. I expect some clarity on that.
Similarly, UKspace has highlighted uncertainty about whether the licensing system entirely replaces the OSA or whether the OSA remains residually. On that basis, there is clearly confusion in the industry; there is confusion on this Bench, in my case; and I would welcome clarity from the Government and the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, as we discussed, the Government intend to use the regulatory expertise in the UK Space Agency and the Civil Aviation Authority to regulate this new sector. For all spaceflights and associated activities, there will be a single regulator responsible for issuing a licence. Whether this is the UK Space Agency or the CAA will depend on the type of activity. Let me give more detail.
In general, the CAA will license suborbital spaceplane activities and the UK Space Agency will regulate space activities and rockets licensed under the Bill. Where both the CAA and the Secretary of State have regulatory responsibilities—for example, where an aircraft has been adapted for mid-air launch of a satellite into orbit—these will be set out clearly in regulations. There will be only one licensing authority, however. In the case of mid-air launch, this will be the UK Space Agency. This approach provides clarity and accountability while making the best use of the proven expertise of existing regulators.
The noble Lord asked for clarification of the difference between the OSA and the Bill. As he said, the OSA covers launch from outside the UK of British-registered equipment, and the Bill will cover launches from the UK. In the light of those clarifications, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, this amendment relates to drones, a serious issue already rightly raised from the Liberal Democrat Benches this evening. The Committee will recall that at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Balfe made a powerful speech on the subject from a great deal of personal and professional knowledge. The safety issues associated with drones are critical and, as the House was informed at the time, it was understood that legislation had been drafted to address the problems associated with irresponsible use of drones prior to the election and was therefore in a fit and proper state to be introduced to the House at an appropriate time.
The expectation of a serious accident is very high. It is a matter of concern to Members of both Houses that urgent action be taken to address the law on drones, which needs to be reviewed with, not least, compulsory registration of drones to allow police to track down those flying them irresponsibly. The fact is that the law is not fit for purpose to prosecute the perpetrators of this type of crime, which is a matter of great concern to those of us involved in the passage of the Bill through the House.
Baroness Randerson
I rise to say briefly how pleased I am that the noble Lord has raised this issue. I have already referred to drones several times this afternoon. The Minister probably thinks that I think of little else in transport terms, because I raise it frequently. In the previous Parliament the Government said they were thinking about what to do about drones. At the beginning of that Parliament, we were told they would be doing something along with the rest of the EU. Now, of course, it is something on which we have to take the initiative ourselves. The Government now say they have consulted on the issue, so I too would greatly value the clarification that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has asked for—exactly the timescale the Government are working to. There is a real urgency about this. Thousands of drones are being sold every month, and there is little control over how they are sold and virtually none over how they are flown. Day by day, it is becoming increasingly urgent that something be done. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by reminding the Committee that I am the vice president of the British Airline Pilots Association, as declared in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for tabling this amendment, which has enabled us to mention this subject. Like him, I was advised that it was not appropriate to table an amendment to the Bill. He has been more ingenious than me because he has found a way of at least debating the subject as part of the Bill, and I thank and congratulate him for that.
I shall try not to duplicate what the noble Lord said. The Minister and I have now met on two occasions—once last week in the general consultation and once in a private meeting—to talk about this issue. Like other noble Lords, I am seeking something quite specific in this debate on where we will go in the legislative process. Since the last time I spoke on this subject, we have received the report by Department for Transport, the British Airline Pilots Association and the Military Aviation Authority on drones and the mid-air collision survey. Probably the most important thing to come out of it is the threat to helicopters from drones. Obviously, any mid-air collision is not a good thing, but the report clearly showed that there is a specific danger to helicopters, at a time when literally hundreds of flights are going back and forth across the North Sea every day. This issue is of concern not only to pilots but to the Scottish Government and the wider aviation industry.
The Government followed up with a news story press release saying that drones were to be registered and users were to sit safety tests under new government rules. That was on 22 July, so I am sure the Minister will understand why, in the middle of October, we are seeking assurances about how far we will progress and at what speed. Since the last debate, we have had the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. Of course, if there were a tragic accident, people would be looking very carefully at the Minister, his department and others, saying, “You had warnings. You had a report. What is going to be done, and when?”. It is an urgent matter.
Two issues need to be dealt with. One is the police authorities and enforcement, which I understand needs primary legislation. When is that likely to happen? How will the rest of the changes be implemented? Will they be by statutory instrument or under powers the Minister has already delegated to the department? What will be done and when? If it is not being dealt with urgently, why not? In other words, how long do we have to wait to get this very important matter dealt with? A rogue drone could bring down a helicopter and cause tragedy and great unhappiness for families. The Minister is well aware of this. He is not a hard-hearted person saying that there is no need for legislation. What I am aiming for, like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, is for this debate to at least be in Hansard, our parliamentary record, showing a clear demand, and giving the Minister the opportunity to respond in, I hope, an extremely positive manner.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I too would like to own up to trying to find some way of squirrelling drones into this debate and this Bill, but I gave up on the early assurance from the Minister that he was doing all that he possibly could. However, on rereading his letter today, I find that there is some confusion in my mind between a registration scheme relating to mandatory competence testing, and so on, and a more powerful scheme that might set up some technological devices to achieve the objective of separating drones from air traffic and be clearer about how it will be enforced. I should be very grateful if he could flesh out some of the ideas in his letter.
Also in the Minister’s letter—although I realise that this matter is only tenuously in front of us—was a paragraph on the misuse of lasers. He pointed out that there was a clause in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which fell when Parliament prorogued, and he produced certain assurances about the issue and about how pilots and the wider public might be protected. I would be grateful if he would accept the indulgence of the House for him to repeat the assurances that he provides in that letter about addressing the issue of lasers at an early date.
Lord Callanan
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, which allows me to explain at length another aspect of my ministerial responsibilities—the thorny issue of drones. I accept that raising it in the passage of this Bill is a way in which to put it on the record, which we intend to do, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Balfe, at least in part. I realise that their concerns go further than the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, mentioned in his intervention.
The safe use of drones in the UK is vital if we are to realise the full potential that they can deliver. I assure noble Lords from the outset that that is exactly what the Government want, and exactly why we recently responded to our consultation setting out a number of measures that we intend to implement. The UK is at the forefront of an exciting and growing global drones market. We are seeing drones used across many sectors, improving services, increasing efficiency, creating high-tech jobs and boosting our economy. But while aiming to make the UK a global market leader in the drone economy, we must ensure that drones are used safely and in accordance with security and privacy rules. I am well aware of the July Airprox incident at Gatwick reported in the press over the weekend. No one wants to see incidents such as those occurring, which is why we intend to bring forward legislation to strengthen regulation and enforcement for drones.
To reply to my noble friends directly, we are exploring both primary and secondary legislation options and hope to bring legislation forward as soon as possible next year, including an amendment to the Air Navigation Order 2016. My noble friend Lord Balfe asked what measures we were introducing. As set out in our July consultation response, all users of drones that weigh 250 grams or more will be required to register themselves, which will encourage drone users to be more responsible and make it easier to identify drones that are breaking the law. Users will then be required to pass at minimum a short knowledge test to prove their awareness of UK law to ensure that they understand safety, security and privacy regulations. We are also looking to mandate the use of a safety app, an example of which is the NATS app Drone Assist, to notify plans to fly a drone and make users aware of local flight restrictions and ground hazards.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The Minister’s answer so far implies that there is no risk from drones weighing less than 250 grams. What tests and evidence does he have to assure us that that is true?
Lord Callanan
We did extensive safety tests in conjunction with BALPA, and released a detailed report on the size of drones and damage that they could cause to aircraft—both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. We considered that 250 grams was a reasonable threshold to impose at the time.
We are considering a possible restriction on all drones flying within a certain distance of airports and above 400 feet, and whether to increase penalties for breaking the rules. That includes whether and how spaceports could be included in any restrictions that we may implement. Furthermore, we are working towards implementing a product standard for electronic identification of drones at EU and international level. We strongly support EASA’s principal electronic identification, but want to see the proposals simplified to all drones above 250 grams to require electronic identification rather than a complex set of conditions.
Lord Callanan
As far as I am aware, it is the Department for Transport, my department, which is doing it, but I shall come back to the noble Lord on that issue.
We strongly support EASA’s principle of using geo-fencing to enforce compliance with airspace restrictions and electronic identification, but we want to see the proposals simplified to all drones over 250 grams requiring geo-fencing and electronic identification, rather than a complex set of conditions.
The amendment intends specifically to make malicious use of drones an offence. Of course, I recognise that that may be a desired outcome, but Schedule 4 is drafted in such a way that, no matter what device is used unlawfully, it will be deemed an offence. On that point, and with the assurance that the Government intend to bring forward legislation specifically for drones in the timescale that I outlined, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw Amendment 29.
Lord Moynihan
I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I thought that he might well mention Schedule 4, and I am grateful to him for doing so and putting on the record the view that he has just expressed. I also welcome the phrase “as soon as possible next year”, because that should ensure that changes to legislation in whatever form they may be introduced—and I recognise also that that has yet to be determined—will come in advance of issuing the first licences for spaceports.
I am grateful to the Minister and apologise to the Committee that, having flown in from Sydney at 5 am this morning, after about 26 hours travelling, I will not be here right at the end of this evening’s proceedings. I have put my name to Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which I totally endorse and support.
Lord Callanan
I apologise for forgetting to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about laser pens. It is not part of the Bill, but I want to give him an answer. I understand where he is coming from: as he correctly said it was included in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, before Parliament was prorogued, to provide further certainty to pilots and the general public. We are continuing to look at other legislative vehicles. It is our intention to strengthen existing legislation. Safety is our top priority. Shining a laser at an aircraft in flight could pose a serious risk and anyone found guilty could currently be liable to a fine of up to £2,500, but it is our intention to strengthen existing legislation. I cannot give a timescale at the moment but will do so as soon as I am able.
Lord Moynihan
On that constructive note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“( ) An enforcement authorisation must be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours, following the 48 hour period under subsection (7) in which the enforcement authorisation remains in force.”
Lord Rosser
I have just about recovered from the shock of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, refer to not being here for a much later amendment. I was rather hoping we would not get to that because it says here that the target for the day is to complete the group beginning Amendment 32, which is the group we are about to embark on. I sincerely hope that this is the last group we deal with today.
This amendment relates to a view expressed by the Constitution Committee in its report on the Bill published last month. Much of what I will say is lifted straight from that report. It points out that Clause 31 sets out an enforcement regime under which,
“a justice of the peace may issue an ‘enforcement warrant’ in certain circumstances if, for instance, there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is carrying out spaceflight activities without a licence or in breach of licence conditions”.
The committee points out that:
“Enforcement warrants may authorise extensive powers, including powers to enter property and to use reasonable force. For urgent cases, an alternative regime is set out in clause 32. This allows the Secretary of State to grant an ‘enforcement authorisation’ if satisfied that the case is urgent and that relevant conduct or anticipated conduct gives rise to a serious risk (a) to national security, (b) of contravention of any international obligation, or (c) to the health or safety of persons. Such an authorisation permits a named person to do ‘anything necessary’ for protecting national security, securing compliance with international obligations or protecting health or safety”.
Even though the power conferred by Clause 32 is very extensive and broad, the Bill does not appear to lay down any,
“system of judicial oversight (either anticipatory or post hoc). The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee expressed concerns about this aspect of the Draft Bill”.
In its response to that committee, the Government said that:
“In line with the Committee’s recommendation, we have reduced the period for which an authorisation would be valid from one month to 48 hours. This limits the Secretary of State’s power and if a longer authorisation is required, it will be necessary to get a warrant from a Justice of the Peace under clause 31 (Warrants authorising entry or direct action)”.
The Constitution Committee went on to say that:
“The reduction in the time for which an urgent authorisation may apply is welcome. However, we are concerned that such wide-ranging and potentially draconian powers would be exercisable without anticipatory or rapid post hoc judicial involvement. We draw attention to these enforcement authorisations and call on the Government to consider post-hoc judicial approval of their use”.
Amendment 32 provides that an urgent enforcement authorisation under Clause 32 must be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours, following the 48-hour period under Clause 32(7) of the Bill, during which the enforcement authorisation remains in force. I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic and helpful response to this amendment and others in the group. I beg to move.
Lord Fox
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, set out, Clause 32 as it stands offers strong powers to the Secretary of State in which there is no judicial involvement authorising the activities. I support Amendment 32 and will speak to Amendment 33. Those noble Lords who have read them will see that Amendment 32 is repeated by Amendment 33, which goes into more detail at some length, also taking into account the judicial systems of the countries of the United Kingdom.
As the noble Lord said, Clause 32 allows the Secretary of State to authorise the regulator to do “anything necessary”, which is a very dramatic—possibly cinematic—phrase, but we understand what it means. We can understand that there are times when moving quickly would be an issue, but this is not necessarily a block to judicial oversight. In contrast to the proposal in Clause 32, I point to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 where warrants issued urgently by the Secretary of State, without advance approval by a judicial commissioner, must be approved by a judicial commissioner within three working days of the warrant. If it can be done in those circumstances, I suspect it can be done in those which we are talking about today. The Government have not offered sufficient justification for the wider scope of the powers offered in Clause 32, so Amendment 33 is based on provisions in the Investigatory Powers Act and ensures judicial scrutiny of any enforcement authorisations under that clause. In similar vein to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, it calls for a 48-hour period through which a justice of the peace can be involved. Our amendment stipulates that, if an enforcement remains in force for 48 hours, a justice of the peace should offer authorisation within that time or the action would cease to exist. Furthermore, no future enforcement authorisations may be granted under Clause 32 in relation to the same incident.
Amendment 33 then goes on to spell out the roles of the courts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the detail therein. Overall, we would welcome strong support for this principle from the Government and some idea of how other judicial oversight will be added to what currently appears to be a very wide legal writ for one person in government.
Lord Callanan
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of the significant powers in this clause, which we recognise are significant. I hope noble Lords will allow me to take this opportunity to provide assurance that this important power, which will be used only when immediate action is necessary, is both proportionate and subject to sufficient safeguards.
Clause 32 confers on the Secretary of State the power to grant an enforcement authorisation in the most urgent cases, where there is a serious risk to national security, compliance with our international obligations or health and safety. In such emergency situations there may not be sufficient time to obtain authorisation from a justice of the peace under Clause 31. I assure the House that there are adequate safeguards in place. Such an authorisation can be granted only to a named person who the Secretary of State is satisfied is suitably qualified to carry out the necessary action. Each time this power is used the authorisation must be in writing, must specify the action required and will remain in force for only 48 hours from the time it is granted. As an additional safeguard, improper use of this power by the appointed person could be challenged by judicial review. It is worth noting that this power is more conservative and requires more stringent authorisation than other comparable powers of entry: for example, those for nuclear inspectors or health and safety inspectors who are provided with a standing authorisation and may act at their discretion. It is anticipated that this power would be used only in the most serious and urgent of cases where there can be no delay in taking action.
I turn to the amendments specifically. The need to find a justice of the peace to review an enforcement authorisation during the period of validity would impose unhelpful bureaucracy on the person authorised at a time when they are trying to take urgent action to protect people from serious risks. A review of an enforcement authorisation by a justice of the peace after the authorisation had expired would not serve any purpose since the power granted would have already been exercised. In addition, a review by a justice of the peace, whether while in force or afterwards, would place an unnecessary and disproportionate burden and cost on the judicial system, given the other safeguards in place. Moreover, appeal by the Secretary of State, which Amendment 33 provides for, may not realistically take place in time to enable the emergency action needed to address the serious risk in question.
I assure noble Lords that the Government are listening. We have taken on board comments from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and have reduced the time for which an enforcement authorisation remains in order from one month to 48 hours. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked why we have used the wording “to do anything necessary”. It would not be possible or appropriate to list possible actions that may be taken under an enforcement authorisation as this would restrict the scope of the authorisation. The action must, however, be necessary to protect the national security of the UK, secure compliance with the international obligations of the UK or protect the health or safety of persons. An enforcement authorisation will not be issued unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the risk will be eliminated or mitigated as a consequence. Improper use of this power by the appointed person could be challenged by judicial review.
I understand the concerns of many noble Lords that this power is excessive. However, it is more restricted than other comparable powers of entry: for example, as I said, those for inspectors in the Energy Act 2013 or the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It is similar to those powers approved by Parliament in that there is no independent judicial authorisation before or after exercise of the power. The power in Clause 32 requires authorisation for each and every use, is in place only for a 48-hour window and cannot be used routinely at the discretion of the person who is authorised to enter. I am confident that our approach is proportionate and contains sufficient safeguards to address the concerns raised while retaining the flexibility necessary to deal with the very serious risks that this clause is designed to address. With the assurances that I have provided, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw Amendment 32.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his reply and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for speaking to his amendment.
The Minister has produced various arguments but not surprisingly, because he probably cannot get into the mind of the Constitution Committee, he has not said why it was not moved by the kind of considerations that he has put forward. Clearly, that committee regarded this issue as something which could lead in extreme circumstances—at least, one hopes that it would be in extreme circumstances—to an abuse of power if there was no check after the event on whether the power under Clause 32 had been used appropriately and proportionately. My amendment sought to cover that, as did the view expressed by the Constitution Committee. Having a check that this power is not misused, which is what my amendment would provide, is a point that the Minister did not address in his reply. He referred to the difficulties of finding a magistrate or justice of the peace to do this within 48 hours, or at least I think he did. I think he will find that justices of the peace can be produced fairly quickly for a range of rather more minor warrants and issues, and well within the 48-hour period. Unless there is an issue over a Sunday, you can find justices of the peace at a magistrates’ court any day. If some sort of emergency measure needed to be undertaken—as it would in such a case—I imagine that the court would be prepared to co-operate.
The Minister mentioned costs. Frankly, if the Government are throwing at us concerns over costs as a reason for not having a check on whether a draconian power—the wording used by the Constitution Committee—is being used correctly or is being abused, we have reached a fairly sorry state of affairs. The Government must do a bit better than try to argue that this is unacceptable on grounds of cost, which I think was one of the points made by the Minister.
I will, of course, read Hansard and reflect on what the Minister has said but I come back to the point that this view has been expressed pretty strongly by the Constitution Committee, having seen the Government’s response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. These are fairly draconian powers and it is desirable to ensure that those who exercise them know that there will subsequently be a check on whether they have been used appropriately or proportionately. That would help to ensure that they are not abused. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Space Industry Bill [HL]
Wednesday 18th October 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 7-II Second marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 79KB) - (16 Oct 2017)
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 34 is about noise. Some 36 years ago I had a very pleasant life as a 747 co-pilot; it really was a splendid lifestyle. One would be given permission, on departure, to fly at 35,000 feet. You would think the difficult bit would be the take-off, but it is not particularly so. You point the plane down the runway, get to about 180 or 190 miles per hour, then pull the stick back and 320 tonnes of aircraft, including yourself and the captain, goes gracefully into the air. That is when the trouble starts, because you start to fly what is called a standard instrument departure, which often involves lots of twists and turns very early in the departure. The reason for that, not just in the UK but across the world, is to follow a minimum noise route. If you do not follow such a route, someone will ring up the airport, the airport will ring up your employer and your employer will have a free and frank discussion about your career. Noise has been at the top of the list of concerns about civil aviation since the jet age. Early jets were extremely noisy. I was privileged to fly the VC10, which has a noise footprint comparable to that of a satellite-inserting rocket; at least that is what my wife used to say.
In the Bill, I looked for provisions to protect people around spaceports from noise. From looking through the Bill—I am sure the Box will send a note if I am wrong—I am pretty sure that the word “noise” does not appear anywhere in it. I did not look for its near relative, the word “nuisance”, which is what would be used in virtually any other environment. It is normally common-law rights—I am not a lawyer but I think they are called torts—to quiet enjoyment that allow one to use the courts to restrain the nuisance other parties bring to one. Looking for the word “nuisance” in the Bill—once again, I await correction—I believe it appears once, on page 23, in Clause 33(1), which states:
“No liability arises in trespass or nuisance in respect of spaceflight activities carried out in compliance, or substantially in compliance, with the requirements and conditions imposed by or under this Act”.
In other words, the only reference to “nuisance” is to deny citizens the rights to use the courts to protect themselves.
Nowhere in the paperwork can I find the Minister writing to me and saying it, but I think he has said informally that this is just like aviation law, which has a similar clause that we will deal with in the same way. The folklore was that it was as simple as that, but I thought I would look it up. The most useful reference I found—I used Google; let us be realistic—was an online publication, politics.co.uk. I checked it out with our press department and I am sure it is a respectable organisation that does not produce fake news. The site had a section on aviation noise, which I will quote, simply because it is so much better worded than any speech I could create:
“The Air Navigation Act 1920”—
I knew it had gone back a long time—
“provided the basis of the UK’s aviation noise regulation regime, by exempting aviation from nuisance sanctions, in order to stimulate the nascent industry. This principle was reaffirmed in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which nonetheless set out a number of provisions for controlling noise at larger airports through a process of ‘designation’, which has only been applied to date to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. By their Section 78 designation, the Transport Secretary is responsible for regulating take-off and landing noise at these airports”.
So I sped to the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to see how it exempted aeroplanes from noise sanctions. Section 76 says:
“No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with”.
Even that implies more control than the bland subsection in the Bill that I recommend be deleted. In fact, I hope the Minister will come back with a much better balanced subsection.
I then went on to read Section 78 of the Act, which is really quite powerful:
“The Secretary of State may by a notice published in the prescribed manner provide that it shall be the duty of the person who is the operator of an aircraft which is to take off or land at a designated aerodrome to secure that, after the aircraft takes off or, as the case may be, before it lands at the aerodrome, such requirements as are specified in the notice are complied with in relation to the aircraft, being requirements appearing to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of limiting or of mitigating the effect of noise and vibration connected with the taking off or landing … at the aerodrome”.
That section has enabled communities around those major airports to be protected over the years since 1982. I continue to quote from politics.co.uk, which says:
“In practice, noise restrictions at designated airports”—
Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—
“have been implemented through restrictions on departing aircraft noise, controls on night flying and (at Heathrow and Gatwick, under Section 79) housing noise insulation schemes … At other airports, the successive governments have continued to favour local resolution. Councils’ main instrument in this regard is the Section 106 Obligation, a condition that can be placed on planning permission. These Obligations can limit movement numbers, operating hours and the types of permitted aircraft. Voluntary agreements can also be reached. London City Airport and Luton Airport, for example, have agreed maximum noise exposure contours, which must not be exceeded”.
I put to the Minister that a combination of the fact there can be designation and the fact there is precedent for these local resolutions is why air operators agree these local agreements. There is a parallel in some of the banking regulations: because strong powers exist for government to implement appropriate protections, local agreements emerge. There is no strong power in this Bill to which communities can look. Therefore, I believe the Bill is insufficient to achieve the objective.
Compared with Clause 33, the whole of the aviation industry is, by statute and practice, better equipped to protect from noise those who live around airports. The Bill should be amended by the Government to have a more comprehensive regime to ensure that when this industry is as successful as so many people described on Monday, with massive numbers of movements, those living around the spaceports have adequate powers to protect themselves from noise nuisance. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
I must confess that in looking at the roster of the amendments, I tried to work out what the main thrust of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would be for deleting this provision. On hearing his detailed and comprehensive presentation, we find ourselves agreeing that there should be more powers to control noise than are currently available within the confines of the Bill. The noble Lord has identified that the provision may not be the optimal way to deliver that outcome. We would be interested to hear how the Minister might take this issue on board. The planning process should take it into consideration. The rejuvenated noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will probably suggest that a launching facility that goes out over the sea may be one way of mitigating some aspects of the problems described. However, leaving that to one side, we believe that somewhere in the Bill firmer and more direct controls are needed within the armoury of Ministers.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for reminding us of the importance that Prestwick Airport has already attached to the noise question and agree with many of the points that he made. Nobody in this Chamber has as much experience or expertise as him when it comes to flying 747s—indeed, it will be principally 747s that are adapted for these purposes. Those airports from which such aircraft currently fly and land will already have taken into account the importance of the noise question. It is vital that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, be taken into account. There should be full consultation with local communities. This is a new technology for many of them and there will be considerable concern about the level of noise. That should be dealt with through the planning applications that will in many cases be necessary; it should also be done in any event by those seeking licences. They should communicate and engage with local communities and make sure that this point is high on the agenda. If that is what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is aiming for, I support him. I know that everybody associated with Prestwick Airport is already minded to focus on this important issue, although, as was rightly pointed out, we have the benefit of a runway which would be used to take off pretty much immediately over the sea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for moving his amendment—I shall say a few words about noise shortly. We have already had a helpful debate on Clause 33(5) and (6) and the power to cap an operator’s liability, but Amendment 34 would remove subsection (1). Under the amendment, an operator could be susceptible to claims for trespass or nuisance even where they had carried out their spaceflight activities in compliance with all the requirements placed on them.
I appreciate the concerns that noble Lords have raised about this clause and the possibility of spaceflight activities having an adverse impact on people in the locality. The clause is designed to balance the right to quiet enjoyment of one’s land against the right to carry out a commercial activity, and to ensure the minimal encroachment of rights where the operator is acting in accordance with the law. As the noble Lord acknowledged, it is replicated from Section 76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which provides a similar protection for aircraft operators. We believe that this provision is necessary to prevent an operator who was acting lawfully from being sued by a third party who considers that his or her right to quiet enjoyment of land is being affected or interfered with.
I should highlight that given the nature of spaceflight activities, it is likely that spaceports will be set up in remote locations, very possibly in Scotland, where any noise or nuisance is likely to affect very few people. In comparison to aviation—where operators, I should remind the Committee, already have this protection—the number of spaceports and the frequency of spaceflight activities will be much fewer. The similar provision in the Civil Aviation Act protects aircraft against claims of trespass and nuisance. Therefore, where aircraft are used in spaceflight activities they already have protection against those claims, and for spaceports at aerodromes, the amendment would have little practical effect.
Our view is that subsection (1) is appropriate to enable spaceflight operators to carry out activities from the UK. It should also be stressed that such a protection does not apply if an operator does not comply substantially with all the requirements imposed upon them. This protection from claims of nuisance and trespass does not prevent anyone who has suffered injury or damage bringing a claim against an operator under the strict liability cause of action provided for in Clause 33(2) or under any other cause of action, such as negligence.
Let me give a little more detail on how frequently we envisage these operations being carried out and their noise impact. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, acknowledged, noise is undoubtedly a prime concern. My main ministerial responsibility is aviation, and I know all too well from my postbag of the difficulties caused to many communities where people live near or around airports. There will be a concern about launch operations; we need to acknowledge that spaceplanes and rockets create significant noise as they take off. Spaceplanes will also create significant noise as they pass overhead. Feedback from operators suggests that vertical launch operations could occur up to 12 times per year. These are indicative figures and would apply across the whole country. It is of course envisaged that in the early years of operations, launches will not even be as frequent as that.
It is difficult to provide an estimate of the launch frequency for suborbital spaceplane operations. Although precise noise levels have yet to be fully determined, initial indications based on published characteristics are that noise from spaceplanes should not create a more significant impact than noise from military fast jets. It is anticipated that in the immediate term, spaceports with horizontal launch operations will be able to comply with existing noise regulations, given that they will take place from a licensed aerodrome. Further analysis of the potential impact of noise will be carried out when a spaceport location is identified and the type of operations to be carried out from it decided. A spaceport operator would be expected to have planning permission for the use of the spaceport to carry out spaceflight activities, and the impact of noise will have been assessed as part of this planning permission.
Nevertheless, I accept the concerns about noise that have been raised by Members on both sides of the House. If your Lordships will allow me, I will therefore reflect further on the points made but in the light of those assurances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 34.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this debate. I have mixed views about Prestwick: I have operated from it and done some training there. Sadly, I once burst two tyres there on a 747, so being there was not altogether an undiluted pleasure. It also has a runway that can be used in both directions but the other one points at Glasgow, roughly speaking.
I am very pleased that the Minister said he is going to reflect on this point. Of course, I entirely understand the importance of the clause and of protecting operators. We do not want to struggle with crafting an amendment that gives the Bill more teeth to help residents, but we might have to. It would be much better if the Government could put the issue of noise per se in the Bill, so that it has to be considered in the various processes. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally (LD)
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. He is the reason why I do not have a fear of flying. When I am sitting at the back—and it is always at the back—of a 747, I always assume that there is somebody up the front who knows a lot about getting it up and down and who has just the same reason for getting it up and down safely as I do. His interventions are important because there is a danger that we treat what we are talking about as just an extension of present civil aviation, and it is a step change, a quantum leap in what we are doing. In his first intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out that rockets are explosions, very possibly dangerous explosions at that.
This amendment strengths the test for the regulator to be liable in respect of spaceflight-related actions to include gross negligence as well as wilful misconduct. I am hoping it is just one of those things that got left out and that when the Minister sees the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s recommendation that such wording should be in the Bill he will stand up and say that he will make sure that it is. Given the central role of the regulator in determining how large aspects of spaceflight should be conducted, it seems fair and logical that it should have its protection removed in case of gross negligence.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, spoke about legislation being drafted nearly 100 years ago to stimulate a nascent industry. We are trying to do that in the Bill, but in so doing we have to make sure that there are also checks and balances to ensure that in making this step change in travel, those responsible have checks and balances on their behaviour that contribute to safety. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for raising this important issue. This clause sets out that a regulator and persons listed in subsection (2) are not to be held liable for their actions or omissions in relation to spaceflight activities or associated activities.
The primary concern of the Bill is to secure safety. As regulators of spaceflight activities, we will take all steps possible to ensure that the risks to the public are as low as reasonably practicable and that all spaceflight activities are carried out as safely as possible. However, given the nature of the activities, the regulator cannot guarantee that all the risks can be eliminated. I highlight that without such a clause, a regulator may be reluctant to take any action in relation to spaceflight activities—for example, licensing that activity—because of concerns that they will be subject to claims, in negligence or breach of statutory duty, in the event of loss or damage arising from regulated spaceflight and associated activities. This would inevitably affect the growth of the sector.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I notice a couple of noble and learned Lords in the Chamber today, and I would be interested to see how they wrestled with that reply. I will of course withdraw the amendment now but I would like to consider the issue further and perhaps bring it back on Report, because there is an issue here that we may want to explore further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Consultation on the licensing and insurance of small satellites
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, launch a consultation on the licensing and insurance of small satellites.(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must explore the following areas—(a) the suitability of a traffic light system whereby small satellites meeting certain launch, orbit and technical criteria can be fast-tracked to licensing;(b) whether in-orbit operations insurance could be waived completely for any such fast-tracked small satellites; and(c) how insurance requirements could be aggregated for constellations of satellites.”
Lord Fox
My Lords, in moving Amendment 38, we seek to insert a new clause after Clause 37 which sets up a consultation on the licensing and insurance of small satellites, including what we call nano satellites, which I will speak to in a moment.
As was alluded to in our previous sitting, when my noble friend Lord McNally spoke about having the right level of liability and governance over these exercises, we seek to set up a process that recognises the varying risks according to the payload to be launched from these facilities. We want to reflect the relatively reduced risk posed by smaller micro-launchers and what are called nano-sat payloads, because both of these are growth industries which would be extremely valuable to the United Kingdom and could be a niche opportunity for such facilities, if they are to be successful. It is essential that the licensing, insurance and range-tracking costs are appropriate to the level of risk to payloads to allow the industry to succeed. We have already discussed how a burdensome regulatory requirement could negatively impact while, at the same time, in a series of amendments and new clauses, we have tried to maintain the right level of oversight.
In particular, a regulatory barrier exists around launch licensing for mega constellations. The current British law treats the nano satellite constellations no differently from large, $200 million satellites that go into geostationary orbit. Each satellite on a constellation is subject to the same licensing fee and must carry third- party insurance coverage of up to €60 million per satellite. Clearly, if there is an array of 750 satellites, it makes the whole affair expensive to insure, and it flies in the face of practice in other regimes, as I understand it.
The amendment would require the Government to consult on the desirability of changing how these small and nano satellites are insured and licensed, to ensure that it would be most beneficial to the industry while at the same time maintaining sufficient cover to be safe. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, this is an interesting point. I hope that the Minister will take it away and give it some consideration. I think we all agree that the whole issue of liability and insurance is important to get right so that the industry does not fail due to crippling cost.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Willetts, who is not in his place, for his comments in Monday’s debate about the need for flexibility for licensing constellations and the benefits of small satellites. I hope also to address the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, from that debate about the length of the licensing process and the insurance cost for smaller satellites—and, indeed, nano satellites.
This amendment gives me the chance to explain the work that the UK Space Agency is already doing to improve the current licensing regime under the Outer Space Act. This work is of course relevant to the Bill as, when it comes into force, it will regulate the operation of a satellite in orbit that is carried out from the UK.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would make it mandatory that, within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must issue a consultation. This consultation would explore a traffic light system to license the operation of small and nano satellites, with the potential to waive the in-orbit insurance requirement under certain circumstances for some small satellites fast-tracked under that system. Finally, it would also explore how insurance requirements could be aggregated for constellations of satellites.
The UK Space Agency already has this work in hand, and I shall take this opportunity to set out what it is doing in more detail—at some length, I fear. The agency conducted a review to evaluate how the UK’s regulatory approach might be tailored for the in-orbit operation of small satellite systems. The outcome of the review was a series of recommendations, and comments on these recommendations were invited from industry.
Feedback was also sought at the regulatory advisory group, which is a meeting co-chaired by the UK Space Agency with industry, where the small satellite community is represented. This review allowed the agency to develop the traffic light system which is currently being trialled ahead of full implementation in the near future. This system gives potential applicants of standard, small satellite operations an idea of the likely outcome of their licence application in advance of lodging a full application. It is a fairly simple system. A green rating will be given where a mission is likely to get a licence; an amber rating signals that a mission is likely to get a licence with some modifications or clarifications; and a red rating means that the potential applicant is unlikely to receive a licence.
For recurrent applications for very similar missions by the same operator, the questions an applicant will be required to answer will be streamlined. Where an applicant is engaging in a repeat mission, some answers will be reused by UKSA in order to minimise the administrative overhead to operators. We expect this to speed up the licensing process for these types of missions.
At this point I shall say a few words about the way in which constellations are licensed. A constellation can be launched under a single launch licence if all the satellites can go on a single launch vehicle. However, the activity of operating a satellite also needs to be licensed as the operator needs to be licensed to carry out the in-orbit operation of each satellite. This is to ensure that the regulator has effective regulatory oversight of each satellite within the constellation. That allows the regulator to direct the operator to take action in relation to each satellite without affecting any of the other satellites under the control of that operator. For example, if 100 satellites are to be launched over four launches, an operator would need to submit only four applications and will result in a licence being issued for each of those 100 satellites.
In addition to the satellite system, the UK Space Agency is considering whether, for certain green-rated missions, the insurance requirement can be reduced or even removed. This assessment will be dependent on a number of risk factors, including the satellites’ operating altitude and whether they are equipped with propulsion systems that allow them to avoid potential collisions with other space objects. Furthermore, the agency is already evaluating policy options to tailor insurance requirements for satellite fleets or constellations, which we discussed in the debate on Clause 3. The feedback from industry is that obtaining a set level of insurance cover for every satellite in a large constellation is prohibitively expensive. Such a requirement could also quickly exceed the capacity of the space insurance market.
We understand that we need a solution that is available and affordable but still offers government and the taxpayer protection by providing sufficient funds in the event of a claim. UKSA is currently developing a policy model which is likely to require operators of multiple satellites to hold a given level of insurance coverage for the damage caused to third parties through collisions—in other words insurance per event rather than per satellite.
Key stakeholders will be invited to comment on the Government’s proposed new policy model, which has been developed in response to the space sector’s innovative approach towards new business models and the development of smaller and more capable satellites, including the nano satellite mentioned by the noble Lord. These matters will be discussed at a workshop on the traffic light system and the insurance requirements for small satellites, constellations and fleets, which is expected to take place by the end of this financial year.
As work on both the traffic light regime for small satellites and nano satellites and insurance requirements for constellations and fleets is already well in hand and likely to be finalised within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, this amendment is not necessary. While we appreciate the content of the amendment, the agency is already engaging with the industry and a mandatory consultation in this area would be a duplication of work. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 38.
Lord Fox
I thank the noble Baroness for her comprehensive answer, and I will be studying it closely in Hansard as it is hard to take in on the fly. If she could write to me about the basic criteria used to flag green, red and amber, that would also be helpful, to give an idea of the parameters being used to make those judgments. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I rise to speak to whether Clauses 38 and 40 should stand part of the Bill. The issue is about land, and Clause 38 deals with the powers to obtain rights over land. The noble Lord has written me a splendid letter—not that I am suggesting that any of his other letters were not splendid—in which, on page 4, he said:
“To enable the safe operation of spaceports, particularly during launch, the Bill makes provision to allow minimal rights over land. I strongly believe that these powers are proportionate and ensure that the rights of landowners are respected”.
I have had a look at Clause 38, and it did not feel very minimal. I shall read the bits that I think are important. First, subsection (1) says:
“The Secretary of State may make an order under this section if satisfied that it is expedient to do so—
(a) to secure the safe and efficient use for the carrying out of spaceflight activities of any land which is vested in a qualifying person or which a qualifying person proposes to acquire,
(b) to secure the provision of any services required in relation to any such land, or
(c) to secure that spacecraft and carrier aircraft may be navigated safely”.
Subsection (3) defines three qualifying persons, the third being the,
“holder of a spaceport licence”.
Subsection (4) starts to set out what may be granted by such an order. Subsection (4)(b) refers to,
“rights to carry out and maintain works on any land”,
and subsection (4)(c) to,
“rights to install and maintain structures and apparatus on, under or over any land”.
Subsection (5) says:
“An order under this section may—
(a) include provision authorising persons to enter any land for the purpose of carrying out, maintaining, installing or removing any works, structures or apparatus”.
Subsection (10) says:
“For the purposes of this section, a reference to carrying out works on land includes a reference to excavating the land or carrying out levelling operations on the land”.
I am not a lawyer, but my recollection is that the concept of ownership is related to the concept of enjoyment. For ownership to be real, you must be able to enjoy what you own. To say, as the Minister does in his letter:
“I can assure you that the Bill does not give spaceport or range control operators powers to acquire land, or for the Secretary of State to do so on their behalf”,
really is not honest. Well, I do not want to say that it is dishonest, but it is not truthful.
You do not enjoy a piece of land when someone can come in, carry out and maintain works, or install a 50-foot tower in your back garden. That is not enjoying the land. The Bill stresses that it can be on, under or over your piece of land. You have to allow the appropriate person to enter and to excavate, so you have a JCB in your back garden—you do not have enjoyment of your land. It is useless, hence the land would be valueless.
I hope the Minister will reconsider the wording of this clause. I know that I am going to be told that such an intrusion would never take place, but I should like the Bill to say that it will never happen by recognising that, if these powers are necessary, there must be an appropriate mechanism for a challenge. There is a mechanism, but we need a proper mechanism for a challenge—and, in that, there has to be a mechanism of redress. If these orders are issued, as far as I can see, my land becomes valueless and I am out of pocket. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, and I hope that they will reconsider the clause.
The noble Lord talks about Clause 40 in his letter, saying that:
“The power in clause 40 restricts the use of land for safety reasons during times of launch and landing. This is essential for ensuring public safety and minimising risks associated with launch. The restrictions which can be enacted by Clause 40 are temporary and are only likely to last for a matter of hours. Therefore I do not believe this represents a significant infringement of land rights”.
There is a problem with being told that these things are not going to happen very often. It seems to me that if they are not going to happen very often, they will not be very profitable. This assurance seems a bit like the Wright brothers, in December 1903, saying to the sheriff of Kitty Hawk, “This is not going to happen very often”. The whole point of the Bill is so that it can happen often.
Clause 40 restricts the rights of citizens to the quiet enjoyment of land, and I do not think that we have the proper mechanisms to take account of those restrictions. Similar restrictions have built up over the years on things such as military ranges and so on—but they were built up for reasons of national security, often in tense and difficult times, and they were accepted by society. These ranges are for a civil purpose and I just do not think that the balance in Clause 40 is right. I hope that the noble Lord will give some thought to this and try to improve the rights of citizens in these circumstances.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I feel strongly about these two clauses, because I recognise them. I have been a Minister for whom civil servants have produced such clauses. They always have an answer: you tell the House that it is not going to happen very often, it will never be used badly and nobody in their right mind could think that it would be any trouble. I have always resisted all those, I have to say. I am a Conservative and I believe in the rights of property. I do not believe that anybody should be taking those away. I am also a believer in the human rights legislation, and I do not like the way that the Conservative Party has made comments about it. It has a very clear defence of the rights of property and I am not prepared to go along with such words, if they mean what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I think that they mean. Maybe neither of us is clever enough to understand the hidden protection within them.
There seems to be no protection whatever in Clause 38; the Secretary of State appears to be able to use it,
“if satisfied that it is expedient to do so”.
Expedient is an extremely dangerous word. Expedient means anything that you want to do; that is why you want to do it—it is expedient. I have to say, I would not trust myself with expedience, leave alone trusting anybody else, and leave alone trusting this Secretary of State to be other than expedient. I do not get this clause, and I certainly do not get why it does not have the full panoply of proper means of protection of the people concerned.
I would like my noble friend to point to other areas where the same kinds of rights are given to the Secretary of State, where similar powers are given without any restriction, because I think that this is a very dangerous area. Nobody could be more enthusiastic about space than I—as long as nobody asks me to go in one of these things. It is a hugely important thing and I am entirely on the side of the Government in seeking to do what they want to do. It would be better if we did not have Brexit—then we would get more of it and a great deal more benefit from it, but that is true of almost everything. The fact of the matter still remains that, whatever happens, if we do or if we do not, this will affect people in this country and their rights to property. I do think that this clause, in its present form, should be presented by any Government, least of all by a Conservative Government who are supposed to believe in the rights of property.
I say very clearly to my noble friend that my problem with Clause 40 is that the only defence given for this provision is that it will not happen very often and will happen for short periods of time. Indeed, my noble friend said that it is okay because it will happen only for short periods of time. If that is the case, why does the Bill not say that? If it is going to be temporary, why does the Bill not say that? If that is not stated in the Bill, people will say, “The Bill does not say that it is temporary and therefore this time we are going to do it for three months”, or say, “Three months is what we meant by temporary”. I am afraid that is the other argument that civil servants try to use. I am trying to excuse my noble friend on the basis of the advice he has received rather than his determination. This measure seems to me contrary to the political position that he holds. After all, he would consider me rather a “pinko”, so I say to him that—
Lord Deben
I beg my noble friend’s pardon. I hope that he is not laughing at that. First, the point I am trying to make is that if I think this measure is a serious incursion, he should doubly think that is the case.
Secondly, I want my noble friend to think again because there is no reason why we cannot include sensible protection in this power without in any way upsetting its balance. Thirdly, I do not think anybody who wants to start a space station would think that they had carte blanche in that regard so long as the Secretary of State thought that was expedient. Fourthly, if we turn this on its head, what happens if such a measure is necessary and the Secretary of State does not think that it is expedient? It seems to me that the Government have to be much more specific about what these provisions mean before this House should accept them. Lastly, this is a matter for this House, which is supposed to be very much the guardian of the constitution. Quite a lot of legislation will come in front of this House where, whatever our views are—we may be very much in favour of space, for example—we have to stand up for the rights of the citizenry. I think that we are going to talk about that a lot. Above all, we have to talk about the danger of handing to Ministers powers which are expedient and not considerably restricted to the purposes for which they are needed.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself enthusiastically with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Tunnicliffe. I touched on these issues when we discussed Amendment 13 on Monday. They relate clearly to the similar issues I raised in relation to Shell Island. It seems to me that line 42 and onwards on page 27 are especially important. The Explanatory Notes state that it is envisaged that these powers will be used only “as a last resort” when commercial options have been exhausted. That chimes very well with the noble Lord’s comments. On Monday, I demonstrated in my comments on Shell Island how quickly you can exhaust commercial options.
The Explanatory Notes also use the phrase,
“land in the vicinity of the spaceport site”.
I have a detailed question for the Minister: what does the term,
“the vicinity of the spaceport site”,
actually mean? Is there a legal definition of that, because we are talking about long-range travel and we could be referring to a very large area around the spaceport site that would in effect be intruded upon in terms of its rights and its use as a result of this wording.
Clause 40 contains the power to restrict the use of land to secure safety. This may include preventing people entering a given area of land for the duration of a launch window. The nearest simile I can think of is people who live near MoD ranges. People in those areas are well aware of the intrusion that that imposes on their lives. This is a very intrusive power and it could extend over a wide area, for the reasons I have already referred to.
Lord Fox
Briefly, there seems to be an internal inconsistency around the frequency and the success of these spaceports. Not only is it envisaged that they would launch commercial satellites but that they would launch recreational spaceflights—I believe that was set out at Second Reading. For that dream to be realised, it seems unrealistic that only 12 flights a year would be the norm. Once again, therefore, across the board, the idea that, “It won’t happen very often, so it doesn’t matter”, is not a reasonable response.
Baroness Ford (CB)
In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I would hate the opportunity to go past without mentioning Prestwick and the spaceport again. I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, says. Although the airport at Prestwick is already well established, with a clear area around it where the public do not come, that will not be true of everywhere. The lack of precision in these clauses, even for somewhere like Prestwick where it is clear where the field of operations will be, still does not do the job. The Government need to think again about being rather more precise in these clauses around what exactly they mean with regard to these restricted areas and what those restrictions will mean. I can see that in other places, where the airport is perhaps not as established or as big, there may be difficulties. I therefore have a lot of sympathy with the noble Baroness’s argument.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for this short but sharp debate, which was so excellently introduced, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I shall endeavour for my response to be as splendid as he intimates some of my letters to him are.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Deben for his contribution. I would never accuse him of being a “pinko”—despite the pocket handkerchief that he is wearing today. We of course have some fairly profound policy differences, but I hope that I will be able to answer his concerns on the matter of land provisions in the Bill.
A number of noble Lords expressed concerns about these provisions, but I reassure them that the Government are taking a responsible and balanced approach. Powers are restricted to what we believe is strictly necessary and proportionate for securing safe spaceflight operations. Clause 38 allows for the creation of orders granting rights over land. Such orders may be necessary to ensure that utilities and other supporting infrastructure can be installed and maintained—for example, for radar or surveillance.
Spaceflight from the UK will be conducted on a commercial basis, and as such we expect operators to negotiate access in the vast majority of cases. Such an order would be created only as a last resort where negotiation with the landowner has failed to produce a mutually agreeable outcome. Schedule 6 sets out further provisions for such circumstances, including how notice for such orders should be given and how proposed orders can be objected to. Spaceflight is a new opportunity for the UK, and as technologies develop we want to ensure that any equipment necessary for safe spaceflight activity can be installed, maintained and removed as necessary.
I will say a few words about Clause 40 and then come back to some of the points that were made. Clause 40 continues the approach that the Government have taken of ensuring that safety is at the heart of the Bill. The clause allows the Secretary of State to restrict or prohibit the use of land or water around the times of launch and landing to protect the public. Any order made under the clause would be temporary. It is not our intention to unnecessarily restrict the actions of people who use these areas of land or water.
This power would be used only as a last resort in circumstances where operators had been unable to negotiate restriction arrangements with local landowners or users of affected land or water. Contravention of any order under this clause would be an offence. The safety of the general public is critical and therefore it is vital that the Secretary of State has sufficient power to enforce this vital safety measure.
I will now say a few words about the points that were made and answer some of the questions. I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who asked about a definition of “vicinity” and about what size area would be affected. Launch from the anticipated vertical-launch spaceport sites of course will be towards the sea. We therefore expect that only small areas of land will be affected by these orders. The regulator can also use licence conditions to ensure that spaceflight activities do not have a disproportionate impact on populated areas. Schedule 1 lists indicative licence conditions. These include conditions relating to trajectories and mission profiles as well as conditions imposing restrictions on areas where, and times when, spaceflight activities can take place. The exact type of launch and mission—
Baroness Randerson
I wonder whether, in further detail, the Minister could write to me explaining exactly what a “small area” of land is. I assume we have examples from across the world of the kind of size of area that has to be set aside during operations such as this, and it would be very useful to have some idea of how large the affected area will be.
Lord Callanan
I will come on to explain that—but, of course, if the noble Baroness is not satisfied I will be very happy to write her another letter, splendid or otherwise.
Horizontal-launch sites will be aerodromes and therefore subject to provisions similar to those in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 that apply to aerodromes. We therefore expect that the main use of this power, if it is needed at all, will be for vertical-launch spaceports. On vertical launch we will continue to learn from countries that have extensive experience of launch. One such example is the United States, where the Federal Aviation Administration has implemented a launch-site boundary with a radius of 2.2 kilometres from the launch point for small vertical-launch vehicles that are likely to be similar to those that will be launched from the UK. This is an area to which access is restricted during a launch window. The proposed sites are much further away from local towns than the area that is likely to be restricted under a Clause 40 order.
I turn to some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Deben. Interestingly, the power is based on similar powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I do not know whether my noble friend was a Minister in another place when this Act was passed or a Member of Parliament during the debates, but the powers do not go as far as those in the Civil Aviation Act.
My noble friend Lord Deben also asked why we are doing it, if there will not be many launches. We believe that these powers are necessary in case a licence holder cannot, despite their best efforts, secure a deal for access to land or restriction of the use of land during launch and landing. Invoking the Secretary of State’s power would very much be a last resort.
Lord Deben
Let us say I own the land of which we talk and have had a negotiation with somebody who says, “I’ll give you fourpence ha’penny”, and I say, “But I need five pence”. And I go on saying that and he goes on and on saying, “Four pence ha’penny”. Finally, he says that he cannot come to an agreement. What right do I have to appeal against the Secretary of State stepping in and saying that, because a discussion has been had and an agreement not reached, it is expedient to do this? Where in the Bill is my appeal right against the Secretary of State’s decision that it is expedient to overrule the fact that I, with all good intention, have not been able to get a deal? That is the bit that worries me. I am not worried about doing it; I am worried about the fact that I have no claim over the Secretary of State in these circumstances.
Lord Callanan
There is a right to object to any order made and we hope these matters could be the subject of negotiations. I hope my noble friend will accept that it is important that we do not allow a provision where a person perhaps not as reasonable as he might be in the circumstances could hold the whole operation to ransom. These things are always a matter of balance and there is a right to object to an order.
Lord Deben
I am sorry, and I will not interrupt again, but with respect, this is not a balance. This is a perfectly simple statement that the Secretary of State can make an order and no one has a claim against that. One can object to the order, but as far as I understand it, there is no proper judicial circumstance in which one can insist that it is not expedient because there has been a perfectly good negotiation and the other party will not go away. I do not want to hold this up but I want to protect the rights of the person who has negotiated perfectly reasonably but failed to come to a conclusion, and then the Secretary of State steps in for some greater good, and that person has no claim except to object to the order. As far as I can see, if someone objects to the order, it will be a case of “objection overruled because it is not expedient”.
Lord Callanan
As I said, there is a provision for an interested party to object to the order if it has been proposed, and if the order has already been made then Schedule 7 provides for the quashing of the order. However, I take my noble friend’s point. We believe that the power remains necessary because of the limited number of sites suitable for spaceflight operations in the UK and the need to ensure that operators are not held to ransom and the UK is able to benefit from this growing industry. When we come back to this matter in the next debate, I will address the operation of orders and how they may be challenged. I hope my noble friend will allow me to address this further during the debate on Clause 42.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the appropriate mechanism for challenge. Schedule 7 provides a process to apply for orders made under Clauses 38 and 40 to be quashed.
On the matter of compensation for people who lose out because of these powers, in Schedules 8 and 9 there are provisions for compensation in connection with the diminution of value of land interests, damage to land, interference with the use of land and general disputes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked how long these orders will last. We expect orders restricting the use of land or water to be in place for only a short amount of time around the window of launch—typically a few hours—but the exact period will depend on the type of launch. I can give an assurance that they will be in place for the minimum necessary time to ensure the safety of the public. I hope I have addressed her comments about the size of the area affected. As I mentioned, “vicinity” is not defined in the Bill and if there were a dispute it would be given its ordinary English meaning by a court. The power may be exercised for only the limited purposes in the clauses.
I believe I have addressed the points. However, I take on board the strong feelings in the Committee on this issue. If noble Lords will allow me to go away and reflect further on the powers in this clause, I will come back to the subject. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to withdraw his objection to the clause standing part of the Bill. With those assurances, I shall reflect on the issue and come back to it at a future time.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, of course I will not press my objection to the clauses standing part because that was not the purpose of the exercise. The purpose of the exercise was to have this debate, which has revealed serious weaknesses in the Bill. The Minister’s response has not been satisfactory and I hope he will further reflect on this issue. If he thinks that we have simply misunderstood the Bill—which is hardly difficult with this Bill—I hope he will set out the detail of how compensation, proper redress and judicial activity may come about under the various clauses. So far, despite careful study by me, my colleague and our researcher, we have not seen those processes there. I hope he will do that, reconsider and introduce new thinking and amendments to meet the concerns. When someone like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I agree, a Minister should be worried.
With that, I assure the House that I will not oppose these clauses standing part. However, we may come back to them on Report. I want to avoid doing that. Crafting an amendment to give effect to our concerns would be a difficult task but we may be forced to do it if the Minister is not able to give a more favourable response privately and to assure us that he will propose something on Report.
Baroness Randerson
“( ) An order under section 38 or 40 cannot be made—(a) in relation to a spaceport or prospective spaceport in Scotland, without the consent of the relevant Minister in the Scottish Government;(b) in relation to a spaceport or prospective spaceport in Wales, without the consent of the relevant Minister in the Welsh Government; or (c) in relation to a spaceport or prospective spaceport in Northern Ireland, without the consent of the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive.”
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, Amendment 39 is on a similar theme. It relates to Clause 42 and the operation of orders in relation to the land to be used for a spaceport. A proposal to make an order, or an order itself, under Clauses 38 or 40 may not be challenged in any legal proceedings. Furthermore, such an order becomes operative within six weeks, which is a very short period of time.
On the face of it, these are sweeping powers for the Secretary of State to create rights over land and to restrict the use of land to secure safety. I find it quite difficult to square this clause with the comments of the Minister in relation to the previous debate, in which he assured the noble Lord, Lord Deben, of the legal right to challenge. That is because this clause states specifically that that cannot be done.
The powers referred to in the clause are essentially planning powers, which are normally devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so this amendment is designed to probe how the powers in the Bill that are conferred on the Secretary of State will operate in tune with the powers of the devolved Administrations. We have heard on several occasions that the devolved Administrations are supportive of the spirit of this Bill, but I am surprised, given that it relates so strongly to devolved planning powers, that it makes no direct mention of the devolved Governments. Here I draw a parallel with the Bus Services Bill. That also dealt with devolved powers and referred to the rights of the devolved Administrations in that respect.
As well as planning issues, the Bill deals with the licensing process, which is to be managed at the UK Government level as a UK Government responsibility. I would suggest to noble Lords that there could well be friction between the two sets of powers and between the two levels of government; in fact, it is unlikely that there will not be friction at some point. It is also inevitable that security issues will have to be taken into account, and those powers lie at both the devolved and the UK levels. The point I want to make is that this is a complex picture, so the amendment seeks to formalise the relationship between the UK and devolved Governments and to ensure that they cannot be overlooked.
I have no doubt that those Governments are supportive of the Bill now, but they may not always be so in every case. Good law should seek to allow for every possibility. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 39 and the Motion that Clause 42 should stand part. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, underline why we support devolution, so we would not want this Bill to reduce in any way the responsibilities of the devolved Governments—along with the devolved city state of Prestwick.
Our concern with Clause 42 as a whole is that we do not understand why orders made under what will be Sections 38 and 40 cannot be challenged, but it then refers to a schedule under which they can. We feel that the drafting could be much clearer so that it takes account of the devolved Administrations and does not reflect an apparent conflict between the schedule and the clauses.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, I agree with some of the comments that have been made about the importance of dialogue with the devolved Administrations. The success of a project of this kind depends heavily on a close working relationship with the devolved Assemblies and those responsible within them for supporting activities and investment in and around any proposed spaceport, as well as communicating with local authorities. I think it is inconceivable that the spaceport project should move forward without very close co-operation, for example with the Scottish Government; in fact, that should be at the heart and centre of the consultation and planning for development of potential spaceports in Scotland. On that point, I very much welcome that an amendment has been tabled to that effect, and I hope the Government will find some way of giving comfort to the Committee that this important issue, wherever it is in the United Kingdom, will be recognised and acted upon.
I am glad to report on the first point of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who would expect me to reflect for just a moment on the importance of the land issue relevant to potential spaceports. For example, I am very glad to report to the Committee and place on the record that Prestwick Airport already owns sufficient land, so none of the ground requirements for spaceflight activities would require additional land. The restrictions will be merely in relation to the air volume zone. Depending on the strictness of regulations, the runway, as I have reported to the Committee, is a mere 13 metres short of 3 kilometres—so very long. There may be the need to carry out a consultation in order to process a planning application, but Prestwick Airport would not be impinging on anyone’s land or assets. That should give great comfort to the department to recognise that an early recognition of first-mover status for Prestwick Airport in this context should be granted.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, before addressing the noble Baroness’s amendment, if the Committee will allow me, I will go into a little more detail about the operation of orders that can be made under Clauses 38 and 40.
Clause 42 sets out that orders made under these clauses will become operative after six weeks, and how they may be challenged. It provides that the making of such orders may be challenged through applications to quash orders under Schedule 7. Persons who receive notice of a proposed order are also able to object to an order which has been proposed under the provision for objections set out in Schedule 6. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, is not in his place any more, but I point out that these order-making powers are equivalent to powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. A six-week time limit also applies to challenges to those.
Turning to Amendment 39, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked how such orders are made when they relate to land in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. In this context, I feel a bit sorry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which do not seem to be receiving the same degree of attention as certain sites in Scotland, but I want to remain strictly neutral—my job is to try to get the Bill through, and I am sure there will be fair competition between the different sites regarding where spaceports should operate.
I want to assure the Committee that throughout the development of the Bill, we have consulted extensively with colleagues in the devolved Administrations. The Bill has the opportunity to benefit the whole of the UK. Scotland and Wales are actively supporting the development of spaceports in their regions, as we heard in the case of Scotland, while Northern Ireland is benefiting from direct industry investment in research and development. We have worked with them to ensure that they are content with all provisions in the Bill, and we have agreed an approach to land powers which our partners in the devolved Administrations are fully content with.
Schedule 6 requires that notice of a proposal to make an order under Clause 38 or Clause 40 must be published in local newspapers and also served on the local authority in question. This gives an opportunity for the devolved Administrations to raise any concerns about a specific order. After an order is made, notice must be published and served. Anyone aggrieved may then apply to quash the order, as set out in Schedule 7.
Baroness Randerson
The Minister referred to the 1982 Act and similar powers there. I will of course go away and investigate that, but we cannot get by just by relying on the Sewel convention on something as big and significant as this. I am delighted to hear that the Government have consulted with the devolved Governments, but I still fail to understand why the Bill does not refer specifically to the powers of the devolved Governments in a similar way to the Bus Services Act. It might be a totally different set of powers, but the principle is exactly the same.
I would be very pleased if the Minister gave us more detail on how the Government have reached agreement with the devolved Governments on how powers are to be exercised. That might help provide a little clarity. This is a very complex, technical issue. I will read Hansard carefully and may come back to this general issue on Report if I need further clarity. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Space Industry Bill [HL]
Monday 23rd October 2017
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 7-III Third marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 72KB) - (19 Oct 2017)
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if those who are not engaged in the Space Industry Bill would like to leave at this point before we go on.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I will in due course also speak to Amendments 41 and 42 in this group.
We have heard a lot recently about Parliament taking back control, yet no Government have done more in recent times to weaken parliamentary scrutiny and strengthen the power of the Executive than this one. They load up Bills with powers to be enacted by secondary legislation, and then complain if either House of Parliament objects to the powers thus taken. The truth is that we ain’t seen nothing yet. The Bill is just a taster of what is to come. We are of course dealing with our old friends the Henry VIII powers. As the Select Committee said on the matter:
“The number of delegated powers granted by the Bill is notable —the Bill has 71 clauses and confers approximately 100 delegated powers. Some of those powers are very broad”.
These should be called the Conrad Russell amendments. During my early years in this House, the late Lord Russell would root out and oppose Henry VIII clauses in Bills from both Conservative and Labour Administrations. As a Minister, I may even have tried to push through the odd Henry VIII power myself. Parliament should be wary of them.
Amendment 40 leaves out the catch-all term “enactment” and inserts the more precise and narrow reference to “secondary legislation”, so that SIs cannot amend primary legislation and only secondary legislation made under Clause 66 can be amended, repealed or revoked by secondary legislation. Amendment 42 would ensure that if we cannot stop SIs amending primary legislation, any regulation under this clause which seeks to repeal primary legislation is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Whatever the outcome of Brexit, it is clear that the Government wish to find ways more easily to future-proof complex legislation. If we are to put the best gloss on these attempts at Henry VIII powers, this is about government trying to be more flexible as the impacts of legislation become clear. However, it involves weakening parliamentary scrutiny. Although this is a debate on the Space Industry Bill, it raises many important issues, which we should look at ways of dealing with in the long term. Certainly, the Select Committee has a good claim for taking this on as a broader issue, or perhaps the Lord Speaker and the Speaker could set up a Joint Committee. However, current parliamentary procedures are not adequate to deal with legislation such as immensely complex, technical Bills—we will soon have another one: the Data Protection Bill—which try to legislate for rapidly changing technologies. Henry VIII powers are not the solution, and although we put down these amendments in an attempt to proceed with this Bill, this is a longer-term problem that is a long way from being solved. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will say few words in support of the general propositions that my noble friend Lord McNally has referred to. I have come to the sad conclusion that the Government do not believe in parliamentary democracy but in executive government, and that they use every means they can to avoid Parliament’s scrutiny. The particular example that I am concerned about is what has happened to the Joint Committee on Human Rights; that goes back many years to when the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, chaired it and I first joined it. Lords committees are relatively safe, because we can protect them within this House. However, a Joint Committee of both Houses depends upon co-operation by both Houses. The Joint Committee on Human Rights is a vital constitutional safeguard that looks at every Bill and some delegated legislation for its compatibility with human rights. It is quite unacceptable that on the Commons side, the places have not been filled and the committee has therefore not met or sat, not just for weeks but for months now. It is an outrage and I very much hope that the Minister will pass on that message to some of his colleagues. Without that public watchdog, parliamentary scrutiny is very much weakened, and therefore I support everything that my noble friend Lord McNally has said.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I too support what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said. The whole of this part of the Bill—Clauses 66 and 67—raises the same basic point. I will address what I have to say in relation to these amendments and come back, if I may, on Clause 67.
I know that I am being very old fashioned—almost constitutional—but why are we giving a Henry VIII clause the heading of “Minor and consequential amendments”? It is perfectly true that Clause 66(1) provides for minor and consequential amendments. That is because it introduces and gives effect to Schedule 12, which contains a whole series of consequential amendments that follow from the Bill. However, thereafter we are dealing with a regulation-making power that will enable the Executive—in this case, the Secretary of State—in due course to come back to the House to get more power to overrule, set aside and get rid of primary legislation. I do not regard that as minor. It is a very serious issue for regulation, whether through the Secretary of State or anybody else, to set aside Parliament.
I shall have to reserve what I say about Clause 66(6), which concerns the devolved Administrations, to when we come to the next amendment. However, I strongly object to legislation such as this being expressly regarded as minor.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, most of us are very much in favour of this Bill. Most of us want to make Britain the sort of place where space exploration right across the board is a natural part of what we offer the rest of the world. That is where we start from. Most of us are perfectly prepared to understand that minor and consequential amendments need to be made to laws as the world changes. However, most of us are here because at some point in our lives we have cared about the British constitution and about Parliament restricting the powers of the Executive by saying that, if primary legislation is to be changed, it is to be changed here in Parliament and not outside it by people who are not subject to Parliament. I am deeply concerned that much legislation will be brought into disrepute because people will believe that they no longer have a say in the proper procedure of making laws.
If this legislation were the only case where such a proposal is being made, I suppose one might be able to argue that so complex, detailed and particular is this matter that some special arrangement needs to be made. However, it is not the only case; it is a regular activity that this House has had to refuse. I have to admit that there were three occasions when the current Secretary of State was the Minister for Legal Affairs and I was one of those who managed to reverse attempts to take into the hands of Ministers power which ought to be in the hands of Parliament.
I say to my noble friend that one danger is that this House will have to take a more active part in secondary legislation if that is where the decisions are to be made. It is a very cumbersome system, and there is a mechanism here that would make it almost impossible to use, so that is not what we want to do. I say to my noble friend that this is not a small matter. Maybe the people in the Chamber who think this Bill is all about space have left it to those of us with an interest in the subject, but the fact is that every Member of this House ought to be interested in ensuring that primary legislation is not changed other than in a primary way in which Parliament plays a proper part.
I would like my noble friend to realise that this is a growing concern on this side of the House—it is not something that is going to slip through. More and more people are saying that legislation is being passed to give Ministers powers they should not have. The point I am making is that I was a Minister for 16 years, and I do not think I should have been given these powers. I know very well that when you are a Minister, you take things very carefully if you are going to have to report to Parliament. It is different from having a power to act on your best intentions. It is a much harder and tougher thing—and so it should be; that is what we are here for. We should not allow the Government to change what has been the attitude and concern of all Governments, of all sides, which is to reserve to Parliament that which is parliamentary, and not to try to steal it for the Executive.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and say that I am speaking personally in this debate and not on behalf of that committee. I support what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is seeking to achieve in these amendments and the important principle he has raised. I also echo the words of my noble friend Lord Deben as well as the views both of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
This is an issue which, every Wednesday, I consider in detail during the Select Committee’s proceedings. It is not an issue that is receding—it is growing. In the original draft of this Bill, there was provision in regulations to allow the Secretary of State to do this, and this was consequential on any provision in the Space Industry Bill. It included a Henry VIII power to amend, repeal, or revoke any Act of Parliament made since the beginning of parliamentary history—in other words, completely changing any aspect of preceding law in the context of this Bill.
I recognise that the Government have moved on from where the draft Bill was published to where we are today. I welcome this and thank them. They have taken into account a whole series of concerns that have been expressed very eloquently this afternoon, and in previous debates. Many of the Henry VIII powers have gone. Many of the statutory instruments will now be by affirmative rather than negative resolution. It is all in the right direction to enable Parliament to determine its view on many of the key issues in this Bill.
The Space Industry Bill requires a lot of detail in secondary legislation to achieve the single most important objective—the commercial success of this industry within an appropriately regulated authority. We are focusing on the regulations, but it is all too easy for Government to either make a success or a commercial failure with the industry in terms of the regulations they propose. Because of the importance of the commercial aspect of the Bill in encouraging this industry to come to this country and to provide potentially tens of thousands of jobs and activities in areas of unemployment, what is in that secondary legislation will be critical. That is why I think it is right that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others have spoken to this subject in the context of this Bill as well as in principle. If we do not focus now, as we will during this debate, on the nature of the Henry VIII powers and where there will be affirmative or negative resolutions and procedures, we could be putting into law a Bill which actually is of no value, unless the secondary legislation and the negotiations with industry are successful. We will need to come back to this House to look at what is achieved in that context and have our say. That is vital for the success of the objectives of this Bill.
Having said that, I reiterate once more that there has been huge progress as a result of the reports of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, reports in another place and the fact that the Government have been listening. We should also place that on record, because there are significant changes from the original draft Bill, which have taken into account the importance of Parliament having a say on the secondary legislation that will be coming forward.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We have Amendment 42 in this group, but I will also speak to Amendments 40 and 41 since that will save me having to go through the points all over again when we come to my Amendment 45.
As has been said, the Bill gives extensive delegated powers to the Secretary of State, and thus the Government, without the policy details and parameters of those delegated powers being spelled out in the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has described it as a “skeletal Bill”. Consequently, it is difficult to scrutinise it meaningfully. The Government have not published any draft regulations because such regulations are little more than a twinkle in the Government’s eye at present. Formal consultation will not even start on those draft regulations for at least another year. Even then, the Government do not expect the regulations to be laid until the summer after next—nearly two years at the earliest.
Why, then, the necessity for the Bill now? The Government maintain in a letter the Minister sent to me on 6 September that it is needed to give a, “concrete indication to investors that the UK is serious about promoting growth in the space sector and delivering on spaceflight”. So serious and committed, though, are the Government to promoting that growth that the statutory instruments will be laid in nearly two years’ time at the earliest,
“subject to Government priorities and Parliamentary time”,
according to page 5 of the Government’s policy scoping notes. It does not seem to indicate that this is a government priority when there is apparently still some doubt as to whether those statutory instruments will be laid in nearly two years’ time.
The reality is that, with the crucial regulations, a Bill of 71 clauses and approximately 100 delegated powers not being laid at the earliest for another two years and then only subject to Government priorities and parliamentary time, this proposed legislation would not yet see the light of day if the Government still had a legislative programme to enact at present. Since, because of Brexit, they do not, this skeletal Bill, which seeks to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny on future key details through excessive use of delegated powers, is being brought forward now to try to fill up some of the gaping holes in parliamentary business arising from the Government’s programme of non-legislation in the current Session.
The Government appear to have very little idea what the surfeit of regulations will say, whose interests they will impact on or what existing legislation or even legislation still being enacted or to be enacted in the present Session will be cut across by those regulations. As a result, the Government want Henry VIII powers, giving them the right effectively to bypass Parliament by being able by regulations to make provision that is consequential on any provision made by this Act, with the power being used to,
“amend, repeal or revoke any enactment passed or made before this Act or in the same Session”.
The Government have produced policy scoping notes, which tell us that, “The purpose”, of Clause 66,
“is to give effect to the minor and consequential amendments contained in Schedule 12”.
If that is the case, why have the Government not put that in the Bill? The reason is simple: the purpose of Clause 66, despite the wording of the scoping notes, is not intended by the Government to give effect to the minor and consequential amendments contained in Schedule 12. Instead, it is merely one of the purposes of Clause 66. As even the scoping notes subsequently say,
“it is possible that other changes may be required and clause 66(2) and (3) confer a power for the Secretary of State to make such changes through secondary legislation”.
The notes then go on to say:
“This power is needed to make any further minor and consequential amendments to other enactments passed before the Act or during the same Session that become apparent during the development of detailed secondary legislation”.
What is the definition of “minor and consequential amendment”, wording used in the Bill as the heading for Clause 66? Perhaps there is not one; perhaps it is whatever the Secretary of State deems minor and consequential. The Government do not use the words, if my memory serves me right, but they use the words “minor and consequential amendments” in respect of the powers in subsections (2) to (4). Why is that?
The policy scoping notes, outlining the content of subsections (2) and (3), state:
“Spaceflight is a complex activity and whilst related areas of law have been scrutinised it is impossible to rule out the possibility that some other rule of law might be engaged in the future. Equally, spaceflight or associated activities might need to be brought in scope of other laws, as the possibility of spaceflight activities from the UK would not have been contemplated when they were drafted. Therefore the content of the regulations in relation to subsections (2) and (3) will only become known as the secondary legislation develops and further regulations may also be made in the future as and when they are required”.
Precisely—so how can the Government now say that any amendments relating to other enactments, including repeal or revocation, will be minor and consequential and go no further than that? Would the provisions of Clause 66 enable the Government to amend, repeal or revoke any part of the Space Industry Bill by regulations, once it becomes an Act?
The wording of the scoping notes and, indeed, Clause 66 makes it clear that the power to “amend, repeal or revoke” is permanent and apparently not time-limited. The Government have not proposed a time limit on the use of those powers; not even up to October 2019, when presumably the main regulations, covered by six statutory instruments, will have been made and dealt with by Parliament. We surely cannot have such largely unrestricted powers on the statute book in respect of effective parliamentary scrutiny of the powers under Clause 66(2) and 66(3) for ever and a day, on the basis of a Government statement in their policy scoping notes that because spaceflight is a “complex activity”,
“further regulations may also be made in the future as and when required”,
when these are regulations that may,
“amend, repeal or revoke any enactment passed or made before this Bill or in the same Session”.
In that context, we already know that the amendments in Schedule 12 alone already cover 20 Acts of Parliament, including two terrorism Acts and the recent Modern Slavery Act. Neither does the argument hold that there will be insufficient parliamentary time to deal with matters under Clause 66 by primary legislation where the regulations involved are amending such legislation, and that is leaving aside the argument that the convenience of government and the Executive should not take priority over the role of the legislature in examining, challenging, amending and passing proposed legislation.
The Government propose in 2019 to lay the tranche of regulations enabling them to exercise the 100 or so delegated powers in the Bill, apparently through just six statutory instruments. That suggests there would hardly be a blizzard of Bills for Parliament to consider if the Henry VIII powers in Clause 66, in respect of Acts of Parliament, were not there.
I share the views that have already been expressed that the Government need to have another long, hard look at Clause 66 and what it actually means, as opposed to what they say it means.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate so far. I have carefully noted all views.
I know there is considerable concern about the granting of Henry VIII powers—I would be worried if noble Lords did not express such concerns—because of the wide scope of such powers to amend primary legislation that underwent parliamentary scrutiny and debate. However, I assure the Committee that we have given very careful consideration to the need to include such a power. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, acknowledged that we have already acted on many of the concerns expressed, and we have modified the Bill considerably as a result of many of the points put to us by committees in this House and the other place.
Lord McNally
Certainly, the two amendments over which I have control, Amendments 40 and 41, will not be pressed. The best compliment that Jim Callaghan ever paid me when he was Prime Minister and I was his political adviser was, “You’re my mine detector”, by which he meant that I supposedly had the knack to warn him when he was walking into a major problem. History shows that that did not always work, but that is another story.
I say with all sincerity, this is a small debate in a small Committee at the end of a Bill which, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated, we all want to see pass into legislation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made some powerful criticisms which the Minister should read and take note of. When he brings to the House the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as well as a couple of our regulars, the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Moynihan, all saying that this is a big issue that needs a lot more thought, as a mine detector—retired—I recommend that he gives it some thought between now and Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“( ) Regulations under this section may not—(a) amend or repeal an Act of the Scottish Parliament without the agreement of the Scottish Parliament;(b) amend or repeal an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales without the agreement of the National Assembly for Wales; or(c) amend or repeal Northern Ireland legislation without the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will have noted that this amendment has support from the Labour Benches. That is significant. We are still on Clause 66—not the most popular clause in the Bill. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State could make “minor and consequential amendments”—that phrase again—to an Act of the Scottish Parliament, an Act or Measure of the Welsh Assembly or any Northern Ireland legislation, without the consent of the relevant national legislature. This amendment would require its consent if any regulations created under this section would amend legislation it had passed.
I set out the arguments for the need for specific reference to the powers of the devolved legislatures in debate last week, so I will not detain the House by going into detail on that aspect again—save to say that a spaceport would have a major impact on its surrounding area, so conflicting views on access to land, rights of way and so forth could well arise. It is therefore essential that there is no possibility that the UK Government have the power to override the legislation put in place by the devolved Administrations. I will give an example. Planning law in Wales has diverged quite considerably from that in England and could be applied in relation to spaceport building in a very different way from the way the UK Government might expect it to be applied. Since the licensing process remains with the UK Government, the likelihood of conflict exists. It is simply not acceptable for the UK Government to have the power, if they find that a conflict exists, to be able to solve that conflict by amending devolved legislation without the specific agreement of the relevant legislature.
I noted the Minister’s definition of “minor and consequential”. The sort of situation I am thinking of would be covered by the term “consequential amendment”. I draw the attention of noble Lords to the comments of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which stated:
“The Bill does not … make any provision for the devolved legislatures’ consent to be sought in respect of regulations amending or repealing devolved legislation. We noted a comparable issue in our scrutiny of the Wales Bill 2016-17. The House may wish to consider whether it would be more appropriate for the consent of the devolved legislatures to be required when this power is used to amend or repeal legislation enacted by them—as, for example, is the case for certain statutory instruments made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the Public Bodies Act 2011”.
That paragraph means that, first, the Government have previous on this—they tried to do the same thing in what is the now the Wales Act and provoked a huge amount of controversy; and, secondly, that there are ways of doing it, and it was done satisfactorily in both the regulatory reform Act and the Public Bodies Act. I urge the Minister to take the amendment away and give it serious thought. There is cross-party support and the judgment of the House of Lords Constitution Committee is against this aspect of the Bill. Surely those two forces together should persuade the Government to think again. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of what my noble friend has just said. As a former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, I must admit that I know nothing about this particular Bill—but the principle she had enunciated is very important. Indeed, it seems to me that this clause, unamended, almost falls foul of the Scotland Act as we passed it in this House. So I hope that the Minister will take this issue away. I see no reason for having this in the Bill at all. It surely should be possible, as a matter of courtesy, simply to talk to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—if it was recreated. I do not see the need for this issue to arise at all. It is a very dangerous principle and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising it.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe are attached to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The points have already been made in support of the amendment and reference made to the views expressed by the Constitution Committee in its report. One hopes only that the Government are going to take on board what the Constitution Committee had to say.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that when I spoke a few minutes ago I did not indicate that I was a member of the Constitution Committee. I indicate it now. I do not want to repeat everything that the Constitution Committee said—but, with respect, although I do not speak for the Constitution Committee, there is an awful lot of constitutional sense in that paper.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in relation to this amendment, looking particularly at the devolution settlement which was the subject of the Scotland Act 1998. I think it is also relevant to mention Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016, which put the Sewel convention into statute and expressed a principle in relation to primary legislation that would apply with equal force to the issue we are considering today.
The area of devolved competence that is most at issue here can be seen if the Minister looks at Clause 46, which refers to:
“Compensation in respect of planning decisions”.
There are two phrases there: “compensation in respect of”—so compensation is something that is devolved, in this field at least—and “planning decisions” are also a devolved competence in respect of the devolved legislatures. Planning is absolutely at the root of the enterprise that one is contemplating in setting out the locations through which spaceflights and other activities might take place.
The Scottish Parliament, for whom I speak, as best I can, because I understand the Scottish position better than the Welsh or Northern Irish one, will take a very close interest in the way in which this Act is put into force—and, indeed, in framing its own legislation for the future. One has to bear in mind that Clause 66 deals not just with the past, and with what is listed in Schedule 12, but with what the Parliament may do in future in this area. One cannot predict exactly what it will provide for but it is very likely that planning and compensation will be a matter of anxious debate in the Scottish Parliament.
None of the provisions listed in Schedule 12 are, I think, devolved measures; they are not measures passed by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly. So we are looking into the future and at how Clause 66(2) will operate, bearing in mind the way in which the devolved legislatures will look at these crucial issues, especially planning. So these are some words of general support for the point that the noble Baroness is making; I stress the areas of compensation and planning because of how crucial and central they are to how the Bill is likely to operate in future.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, without repeating the arguments that I made when the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, introduced a not dissimilar amendment to the Bill, the one vital example that has been touched upon is that in Scotland planning applications are appealed to the Scottish Government. Decisions may have been made by them and yet there is no provision in the Bill not just for consent but for even entering into dialogue with the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. I say that in opening because it is also important to emphasise that the Bill, being a regulatory framework for commercial activity, will require a significant commitment from all parties.
Noble Lords will be pleased to learn that I was on the bus at Paisley Gilmour Street this morning, en route to Glasgow Airport, and sitting next to Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP for Central Ayrshire. Her knowledge is second to none on the subject of Prestwick’s application; her commitment is total and her enthusiasm is on the record for the success of the project with gold-medal status. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that if he does not know anything about the Bill he has an immediate invitation from all parties, not least my noble friend Lady Ford—she is my noble friend on the Bill as she lives on the other side of Prestwick, while I am on the far side of it—to come along and see for himself the tremendous opportunity that a successful application for a licence would being to South Ayrshire.
That is important because support for a bid such as this comes not just as a result of commercial arrangements but from the success of the site in gaining grants on the one hand—it would be on the basis of grants from the UK Space Agency—and of ongoing support and investment from the Scottish Government. Consultation and co-operation between devolved Administrations and commercial parties will be vital for the success of the Bill and critical to its successful implementation. For that reason, it is important to go one step further than we would normally go in Bills of this type by recognising and emphasising the importance of co-operation and consultation in the Bill, and by providing the framework to achieve that goal.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 43 raises the important matter of consulting the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland during the development of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned, we discussed this last week in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said, the devolved Administrations have confirmed with us that they are content with the provisions of the Bill as drafted and that no legislative consent Motion is required.
Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the Bus Services Act 2017. I should like to say a few words about that comparison. Section 17 of that Act inserts new provisions into the Equality Act 2010, including powers to make regulations for the purposes of facilitating travel for disabled persons and for exempting certain vehicles from those regulations. The new sections in the Act require that the Secretary of State must consult Welsh and Scottish Ministers. In this case, we believe that is appropriate, although not strictly necessary, because the new regulation-making power was at the intersection of devolved and reserved matters. The operation of bus services is a devolved matter but equal opportunities is reserved in Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the Equality Act extends to the whole of Great Britain and so do the inserted provisions.
We believe Clause 66 should be treated differently as the whole subject matter of the Bill is reserved. Although some consequential changes to existing legislation required as a result of the Bill have been identified and made under Schedule 12, further changes may be needed, especially in an evolving technology market. As such, the power to make further changes through secondary legislation is necessary to ensure the UK has an effective enabling legislative framework for spaceflight activities.
Since the subject matter of the Bill is reserved, any consequential amendments made to legislation of the devolved legislatures under the Clause 66 power could only be consequential on a reserved matter. This means that any amendments to devolved legislation that could be made under this power would not require the consent of the devolved legislature if they were made by UK primary legislation. If included in Schedule 12, for example, they would not necessitate a legislative consent Motion. It would therefore be inconsistent to require the consent of the devolved legislature just because such amendments are made in regulations instead of in primary legislation.
As we have said, we have consulted extensively with the devolved Administrations on the Bill and I can assure noble Lords that we would consult the devolved Administrations on any consequential amendments that amend, repeal or revoke their legislation both at the policy development stage and on draft regulations themselves. This is in line with long-standing government policy set out in Devolution Guidance Notes 8, 9 and 10. We have heard the arguments from the noble Baroness and from all sides of the House and we will reflect on them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for her comments. I am grateful for the support across the House for this amendment. We have two forces at work in this clause. One is the Government’s tendency to seize as much power for themselves as possible—that is not unusual in Governments—but it is fatally linked with the desire of the Government to pad out their legislative programme with a series of apparently uncontroversial good ideas. The Bill has support across the House, but we are filling in time before the Brexit blunderbuss arrives. It worries me that we have not been able to see the regulations so we cannot see what the Minister is talking about and it is difficult to imagine exactly how that situation could apply in practice.
Nevertheless, I draw the Government’s attention to the Constitution Committee’s comments. I might be misreading the Bill but I very much doubt that the Constitution Committee could possibly be misreading the Bill, and if it is worried about it, there are serious grounds to be worried about it. The fact that the devolved Governments have not yet drawn attention to it does not necessarily mean that it will not cause a problem in the end. I have tried to explain that planning issues will be at the crux of the matter. It is simply not good enough to rely on the Sewel convention in this. In fact, this undermines the Sewel convention, which states that the Government will not normally legislate on behalf of the devolved Administrations.
When we have discussed in the past what “normally” means, people have imagined that there might be a state of national emergency, where there might be a need for haste that would involve instant legislation. However, this is not the kind of thing that you would think would be an exception to “normally”. I will take this away and read the record in Hansard, but I very much hope that the Government will take this away and look at it carefully. What would the harm be in including the usual provision about consulting the devolved Governments and legislatures? I see no harm in it. We are not going to be setting up spaceports as a matter of urgent emergency—it is something that will take months and years. There would be no delay involved in consulting them, and there is a great deal of good will to be had in committing to consult them. Having said that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, there appears to be a theme developing in this afternoon’s debate. In moving Amendment 44, I will also speak to Amendments 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51. Again, we are on the subject of catch-all powers. Despite our having about 45 minutes left, I will keep this relatively brief.
Clause 67(1) states:
“Regulations may make provision generally for carrying this Act into effect and for achieving the purpose set out in section 1(1)”.
We regard this as a catch-all power that should be removed, which would be done by Amendment 44.
Amendments 46 to 50 relate to Clause 67(6), which stipulates that general regulations must be made using the affirmative procedure but that for those that will be made under certain sections, only the first regulations are subject to it. In other words, the first go through the affirmative procedure but the rest follow behind without it. These amendments would remove the word “first” in each paragraph, subjecting all regulations that will be made under the relevant sections to affirmative procedure. I believe that Amendments 46 to 50 enjoy Cross-Bench support. During Second Reading, my noble friend Lord McNally highlighted the need for the sector to be continuously consulted to ensure that legislation is fit for purpose.
Amendment 51 proposes that before any secondary legislation is made under the Act, the Secretary of State must consult the various relevant bodies to ensure that this is done. The Minister may have a view as to which the relevant bodies are, but the principles of consultation and affirmative change are enshrined in these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I will be very brief. Most of the amendments in this group relate, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already said, to views expressed by the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The reasons for the committees holding the views that they do are set out in their reports before us at the moment. I simply add that our names are attached to Amendments 44 to 50, and once again we hope that the Government will take note of what the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have to say.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I rely on the report of the Constitution Committee but I wonder what the point of the clause actually is. We have a proposed Act of Parliament, Clause 1 of which tells us that the Act is going to regulate,
“space activities … sub-orbital activities, and … associated activities, carried out in the United Kingdom”.
Then there are the Henry VIII powers in Clause 66, with the Secretary of State able to dispense with any part of the statute. Now we have a regulation-making power in Clause 67(1) that enables the creation of regulations to carry the Act into effect, presumably because something has gone wrong with the way in which Clause 1 operates. If Clause 1 gives statutory power to regulate space activities and so on, what on earth do we need a further regulation-making power for? This Act is brim-full of regulations. Is this just belt and braces, or is it belt, braces and a rather heavy boot?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the British Airline Pilots Association and president of the British Dietetic Association because the point I want to make is a trade union one. Amendment 51 contains an impressive list of bodies. I am sure the Minister will point out that there is no need to consult all the people listed on all the regulations that may be made, and I hope he will then say that it will of course be his policy to consult any relevant bodies to get their opinions before any regulations are made. I would like the Minister to say as part of his reply that that will also include the appropriate trade unions that represent people who will be affected. It is important that the Minister consult all the interested parties, and a specific mention of the importance of consulting the appropriate trade unions would be welcome.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, it is of course important that regulations are made within the scope of the delegated powers in the Bill and that they are subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We have thought very carefully about the delegated powers and the oversight of such powers in the Bill and, as my noble friend Lord Callanan mentioned, we have also taken on board a number of recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. However, I note that some of the amendments we are debating here relate to recommendations by the committee that the Government have not accepted, or indeed have been raised by the Select Committee on the Constitution.
Amendment 44 relates to the broad regulation-making power for carrying a Bill into effect and seeks to remove it. I understand the intention behind the amendment and the concern that it may undercut judicial review in the event that the Secretary of State exceeds his or her delegated authority. I assure noble Lords that the Government do not believe there is any need for concern in this case. The scope in Clause 1(1) provides a limitation on the exercise of powers by the Secretary of State in making regulations. That will ensure that only regulations relating to the activities that are the subject matter of the Bill can be made by Ministers. If the Secretary of State were to exceed his or her delegated authority in making regulations under the clause, that ultra vires exercise of powers would be subject to judicial review.
In Committee last week, some concerns were raised about what “associated activities” were contemplated within the scope. These would cover only matters, such as the regulation of spaceports and the provision of range control services, that have a direct link to spaceflight activities. The purpose of the Bill covering associated activities is to provide for activities to be regulated only where there is no current applicable regulation or oversight, and where it is appropriate and necessary to regulate those activities.
The next set of amendments deal with changing the proposed initially affirmative and subsequently negative procedures to affirmative on all occasions. Noble Lords raised their concerns about this approach during our debate last week. I understand that this procedure could possibly be open to abuse. Noble Lords have argued that the Government may make the initial instruments skeletal and leave the detail to later instruments, thereby denying Parliament the opportunity to thoroughly examine the content of the instruments. I reassure noble Lords that this will not be the case. The Government are well aware that if that were to happen, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would be likely to report it as an unexpected use of powers.
The development of the first sets of regulation—including those on safety and security—will be subject to a rigorous stakeholder engagement process over the coming months. This will include a call for evidence that will give everyone, including noble Lords, the opportunity to input into the development of the instruments. The Government will then issue a full and wide-ranging consultation on each of the initial draft statutory instruments prior to their being laid. I assure noble Lords that if there were any material change to the original instruments, there would be further consultation. In light of these safeguards, we believe that the current procedure set out in the Bill provides appropriate and proportionate parliamentary oversight.
Moving on to Amendment 51, it is of course important that interested persons are made aware of proposed legislative changes which may affect them, no matter how minor the change. Although we welcome the spirit of the amendment, the Government believe that creating a statutory obligation to formally consult all listed bodies and persons on any proposed amendment is unnecessary. It is not appropriate to do this for all changes made through regulations—for example where minor, incidental, transitional or saving provisions are required.
However, if the intent behind the noble Lord’s amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to demonstrate that he is seeking the views of the parties that will be impacted by the changes, we can absolutely assure noble Lords that that will be the case. In line with existing practice under better regulation principles, the Government will continue to engage with regulators and other interested persons as appropriate, including the devolved Administrations, when contemplating making legislation affecting them. This will involve full consultation with a wide range of stakeholders where substantive changes to regulations that affect their interests are proposed.
My noble friend Lord Balfe mentioned trade unions. As I said, we intend to consult widely and publicly, which will of course include relevant trade unions. I hope that I have responded to noble Lords’ concerns. As I said on the previous group of amendments, we are listening to the concern raised from all parts of the House and will take it back and reflect ahead of Report, but I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers. Some of them may have been helpful—I will review them, probably with a lawyer sitting on my shoulder to help me—but not completely so, I suggest. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has described the web of seemingly self-reinforcing executive powers, supported by another Henry VIII Act, weaving their way throughout the Bill. We will need to see what emerges: what the Government think that they have to leave in and what—we hope, having had this debate—they believe it would be more sensible to take out. We need to see that in full.
On the substance of Amendment 51, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was that an awful lot of parties have to be in line for this to work. In a sense, this has to be more co-operative than many other ventures that this House debates, and to be obviously co-operative and mandate the process in the Bill would be a positive sign to all the parties that have to say yes before it can be a success. I again ask the Minister to reconsider but, with that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“(6) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision)—(a) regulations under section 4(2),(b) regulations under section 5(2),(c) regulations under section 7(4),(d) regulations under section 7(6),(e) regulations under section 9,(f) regulations under section 12(7),(g) regulations under section 18,(h) regulations under section 22,(i) regulations under section 34(5),(j) regulations under section 35(3)(a),(k) regulations under section 58,(l) regulations under section 64, or(m) regulations that create offences,is subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure.(6A) For the purposes of this Act the “super-affirmative procedure” is as follows.(6B) The Minister must lay before Parliament—(a) a draft order; and(b) an explanatory document.(6C) The explanatory document must—(a) introduce and give reasons for the order,(b) explain under which power or powers in this Act the provision contained in the order is made, and(c) give a detailed explanation of provisions included in the order.(6D) The Minister must have regard to—(a) any representations,(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order,made during the 40-day period with regard to the draft order.(6E) If, after the expiry of the 40-day period, the Minister wishes to make an order in the terms of the draft, he must lay before Parliament a statement—(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (6D)(a); and(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.(6F) The Minister may after the laying of such a statement make an order in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(6G) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (6E) and before the draft order is approved by that House under subsection (6F), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.(6H) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6G) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under subsection (6F) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House. (6I) If, after the expiry of the 40-day period, the Minister wishes to make an order consisting of a version of the draft order with material changes, he must lay before Parliament—(a) a revised draft order; and(b) a statement giving details of—(i) any representations made under subsection (6D)(a); and(ii) the revisions proposed.(6J) The Minister may after laying a revised draft order and statement under subsection (6I) make an order in the terms of the revised draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(6K) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft order may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under subsection (6I) and before it is approved by that House under subsection (6J), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.(6L) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6K) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft order in that House under subsection (6J) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.(6M) In this section the “40-day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament under subsection (6B).”
Lord Rosser
I will be brief in moving this amendment. When we discussed the first group, Amendments 40 to 42, which dealt with the issue of the Henry VIII powers, I expressed our concern about the extent to which they appeared to preclude proper parliamentary scrutiny of what is, after all, simply a skeletal Bill, and in respect of regulations that were not even expected to be laid for nearly two years at the earliest.
I do not wish to go through again everything that I said when we discussed the first group of amendments, but obviously the points that I made then are applicable to the reason for putting down this particular amendment. The amendment provides for the use of the super-affirmative procedure rather than, when applicable, the affirmative procedure in the Bill for considering regulations and secondary legislation under what is a skeletal Bill. The amendment is similar to the terms of the provisions of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.
The super-affirmative procedure provides that a Minister must lay a draft order and explanatory document before both Houses and take account of any representations. Motions passed have to be passed by either House, and recommendations of a committee of either House also have to be taken into account by the Minister. After a 40-day period, the draft order must then be passed by both Houses. The procedure also gives the committee scrutinising the order the power to kill it by recommending that no further proceedings be taken, with this recommendation being able to be overturned only by a vote of the whole House.
If the Government and any future Government are to be held in check by Parliament to try to stop any novel or expanded interpretations of minor and consequential amendments—including, of course, under Clause 66, since the Government have declined to move on that—the super-affirmative procedure provides the best route, if the Government prove to be determined to keep Henry VIII powers in the Bill. No Government ought to be concerned about the super-affirmative procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure, in the context of a skeletal Bill, which it is difficult for Parliament to scrutinise effectively, since, as I have said, the crucial regulations will not even be consulted on until next year and will not come before Parliament for nearly two years at the earliest. Through using this procedure, at least the political and statutory consequences of any overenthusiastic government interpretation of what it is appropriate to put in regulations requiring the affirmative procedure can be properly drawn to the attention of both Houses before they decide whether to give their agreement to the secondary legislation in question. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 46 to 50 inclusive.
Lord McNally
Over the past hour or so we have been wrestling with the same problem: that there is a deep unease in this House—and probably down the corridor as well—that our parliamentary procedures are not flexible enough to deal with much legislation that deals with rapid technological change. I refer to the Data Protection Bill, which we will soon be considering. Over the period of my involvement, in both Houses, in broadcasting and the media, often, 10 or 20 years have passed before a new technological development has arrived—for example, the introduction of radio in the 1920s, and then television, slightly delayed by the war, in the 1940s. Now, we can have technological change within months. How do we get the proper legislative framework in which our judges can work, in a system that is rapidly changing under our feet and before our eyes?
Every Minister that I have heard has always said that SIs give both Houses of Parliament a chance to look at something. To the uninitiated, that seems perfectly reasonable. However, particularly at this end of the building, we know that, if there is any attempt to mess around with SIs, all of a sudden the skirts are lifted and there is shame and outrage at what is going on—the second Chamber ignoring the democratic wishes of the other House, because the legislation will have gone through the Commons on the nod, or with hardly any debate. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is then rolled out to give one of his opinions. The great thing about the noble Lord is that he has given an opinion in favour of almost any argument regarding change in this House, over his long and infamous career—I have enjoyed serving with him for 11 years of it.
Lord Callanan
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who made a powerful contribution. I hope he will agree that many of his points did not relate to the detail of the Bill. I am sure he will accept that the issues of the scrutiny of secondary legislation and the powers of both Houses are way above my pay grade, and probably his too. He made some powerful points and I am sure that the authorities in both places will want to look at them. We will return to those arguments when the withdrawal Bill arrives here. We will have many of the same discussions, loudly and at length, late into the evening.
As we have just discussed, the Government are committed to ensuring robust scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill through proportionate use of the affirmative procedure. This amendment goes further in seeking to impose the so-called super-affirmative procedure for some regulations. This would require the Government to publish a draft order with a detailed explanation of its contents and have due regard to any representations made within a 40-day period. Although I understand the strong desire to have detailed scrutiny of secondary legislation, this is a duplication of effort.
I can assure noble Lords that the first regulations referred to in this clause will be published in draft for consultation prior to being laid before Parliament, providing a transparent, proportionate opportunity for scrutiny. We propose that such draft regulations be accompanied by a full explanation of their intent. This builds on the open approach the Government have taken through the life of this legislation. That includes publishing a draft Bill for consultation and, following the introduction of this Bill, publishing policy scoping notes setting out how we intend to use the powers we are taking.
The amendment would also mean that a committee of either House could make a binding recommendation that no further proceedings with secondary legislation take place, unless that recommendation was rejected by resolution of the House. In a case where a revised draft order is brought back to Parliament for approval, a committee of either House could again make a recommendation that no further proceedings be made in relation to the revised order unless that recommendation is rejected by the House. This would cause huge uncertainty for government, the regulators and, most unfortunately of all, our nascent space industries.
My noble friend Lord Willetts spoke on the first day of Committee about the “lively race” to gain the first mover advantage in small satellite launch from Europe. The introduction of this Bill to Parliament was an important first step to enabling spaceflight activities in the UK and a concrete indication to the industries, investors and the international community that the UK is serious about promoting growth in the space sector. We have then allowed for a period of collaborative and transparent policy development to ensure that we create a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose in what is still an emerging market. However, we cannot wait for ever. Following the consultation I set out above, we will need to be clear when we will bring forward legislation, so that industry can have confidence that UK launch is viable and make appropriate investment decisions. This will not come at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny. The regulations covering the central provisions of suborbital activities, space activities, spaceports and range will all be subject to the affirmative procedure.
It may be helpful if I give more details about the timescale. We currently intend to make delegated legislation through three main statutory instruments: on suborbital activities, space activities, and spaceports and range. It is intended that each of these SIs will set out the licensing requirements and any oversight of operations required to ensure these functions are conducted safely and securely, and to ensure the proper functioning of the regulators in overseeing those functions. These SIs would be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore allow full parliamentary scrutiny and debate. They would be supplemented with three—
Lord McNally
Perhaps I could clarify this. When we discussed this kind of approach in the past, it was suggested that such SIs would be amendable. Am I assuming that these would be unamendable?
Lord Callanan
Under the current procedure, as I understand it, SIs are not amendable. However, if I am incorrect on that, I will come back to the noble Lord.
As I said, these measures will be supplemented with three statutory instruments subject to the negative procedure on exercise of regulatory functions, appeals and charging. By grouping powers in this way we hope to provide clarity for parliamentarians and potential operators on the regulatory requirements for each type of activity while minimising the amount of duplication between the various instruments.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to the timescales. I confirm that we currently intend to lay these SIs from summer 2019—subject, as he said, to government priorities and parliamentary time. This will allow time for more detailed policy development and consultation as well as the drafting of the extensive range of legislation and guidance considered necessary. We envisage holding formal consultations on the draft regulations and the guidance starting in late 2018. We will continue to invite the views of all interested parties—including trade unions, my noble friend Lord Balfe will be pleased to know—throughout the development of the secondary legislation.
Lord Moynihan
It was very welcome that my noble friend just said to the House that noble Lords would be encouraged to participate in the very early stage of the transparent and collaborative consultation phase before the Government came forward with their draft statutory instruments. It is notoriously difficult for many people, not least noble Lords, to know when that consultation phase begins, as we are not necessarily directly notified about that. Could my noble friend ensure that all those who participated in the debate are made aware of those consultations immediately they become available?
Lord Callanan
I will ensure that all noble Lords who participated in these discussions are made aware of the consultations. I will even try to make sure that they reach some parts of Scotland—in which my noble friend seems to have an interest at the moment. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his response and thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his contribution to this short debate. I am sure that the Minister did not anticipate that I would stand here expressing great enthusiasm—
Lord Callanan
May I correct something I said earlier? I am told that, apparently, it is possible to amend an SI.
Lord Rosser
If the Minister has been told that, perhaps he could write to me and to other noble Lords who have spoken to set out clearly the circumstances in which an SI can be amended. Some of us may be slightly surprised by that blanket answer, which apparently covers all SIs—and which, presumably, means that any SI can be amended. I think that that has caught one or two of us slightly on the hop. So we will look forward to the letter from the Minister setting out how a statutory instrument can be amended.
Before the Minister’s interesting intervention just now, I was saying that I am sure that he will not be surprised to hear me say that I am not overenthusiastic about the response he gave. It is clear that the part of the super-affirmative procedure which causes—or appears to cause—the Government the most problem is the bit which gives a committee scrutinising the order the power to kill it by recommending that,
“no further proceedings be taken”,
with that recommendation able to be overturned only by a vote of the whole House. I suppose that that is a good example of how the Government put their own convenience and that of the Executive ahead of proper parliamentary scrutiny.
The Bill denies us proper parliamentary scrutiny. It is a skeletal Bill; the Minister has never sought to deny that. The consultation on the regulations does not even start until towards the end of next year, and they will not be laid at the earliest until the summer of 2019—and then, interestingly enough, only if they fit in with government priorities, despite the fact that the Minister and the Government have gone to great lengths to tell us that we need to pass the Bill now to provide certainty to the industry. Yet now the industry is told that the regulations may not appear in the summer of 2019 if by then the Government have decided that it is no longer a priority or that there is no parliamentary time to do it.
The reason we are in this difficulty over lack of parliamentary scrutiny is, as I say, because the Government have decided to bring the Bill forward so far in advance of the quite crucial regulations. We all know why: it is because they have a very bare legislative programme and had to think of something to fill the gap. They chose the Bill and were quite happy to see a skeletal Bill, and then to expect all of us to accept that there would be no proper parliamentary scrutiny because it is a skeletal Bill of that sort.
I am not entirely surprised by the Minister’s response. He was not overenthusiastic about the concerns raised about the Henry VIII powers. Clearly, as far as the Government are concerned, anything that will either provide proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill or take away some of the draconian powers contained in it are things that at this stage—I hope that the words “at this stage” have some significance—the Government are not prepared to countenance. We have Report to come and I know that the Minister is prepared to have discussions with us and, I am sure, with the Liberal Democrats and other parties. I hope that he will reflect on the very strong feelings expressed today about the powers in the Bill and that he will come forward with at least some proposals to mitigate and address the concerns that have been expressed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Space Industry Bill [HL]
Tuesday 14th November 2017
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 7-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report (PDF, 90KB) - (13 Nov 2017)
Lord McNally
“Potential impact of leaving the European Union on the United Kingdom’s space industry
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the potential impact that leaving the European Union will have on the United Kingdom’s space industry.(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must make reference to the following areas—(a) Membership of the European Space Agency;(b) the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU on research and development and access to funding, including Horizon 2020;(c) the free movement to the UK of those who work in the space industry;(d) the UK’s participation in the Galileo and Copernicus programmes; and(e) the impact of the UK leaving the Single Market on supply chains within the space industry.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the assessment before Parliament within one year of this Act passing, and once in each of the five calendar years following.(4) If an assessment of the impact of leaving the European Union on the UK’s space industry has already been undertaken, the Secretary of State must lay a report of this assessment before Parliament on the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, while other noble Lords go to more urgent business, perhaps I could open by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to her position commanding this particular spaceship and wish her a very fulfilling role in that and in the other positions that I am sure will come.
We have no hesitation in probing further on where our space industry will find itself if Brexit ever occurs. During the passage of the Bill we have had a glimpse of the exciting opportunities ahead for British technology and British industry. The UK space sector is already at the cutting edge of exploring the universe and connecting people to the world around them. It is an industry with a £14 billion turnover, £5 billion in exports, 71% growth since 2010—thanks in no small measure to the priority that the coalition Government gave to the industry under the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—and more than 40,000 direct employees, including 1,400 apprentices. But no industry epitomises the European project more than this industry and its future. Indeed, only yesterday Airbus put out a press release saying that it had won contracts to build two new satellites and that this would be done with work both in Britain and in France.
It is interesting that in an annexe to a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, in his capacity as chair of this House’s European Union Committee, the European Commission spells out its ambitions by stating:
“The Commission aims to boost demand for space programmes among public and private users, facilitating access to and use of space data, and stimulating the development and use of innovative downstream applications. The Commission intends to take concrete measures (including regulatory ones where justified) to encourage the uptake of space services and data, advance the EU space programmes, and meet new user needs. The Commission will prioritise the following main actions:
Promote the uptake of Copernicus, EGNOS and Galileo solutions in EU policies, where justified and beneficial, including measures introducing the use of Galileo for mobile phones, and critical infrastructure using time synchronisation.
Facilitate the use of Copernicus data and information by strengthening data dissemination and setting up platform services, promoting interfaces with non-space data and services.
Stimulate the development of space applications with the greater involvement of new actors from different domains.
Together with Member States and industry, promote the efficient and demand-driven use of satellite communications to foster ubiquitous connectivity in all Member States.
Remain committed to the stability of the EU space programme and develop these on a user-driven basis to continue delivering state-of-the-art services including exploring alternative business models and taking account of technological progress.
Address emerging needs related, in particular, to climate change/sustainable development and security and defence”.
The purpose of the amendment is simple: to ask the Government whether they have made any assessment of the impact of Brexit on our space industries—and, if so, whether they will publish it. It is clear that the Commission has clear ideas of where it wants to go in terms of space, which is very much in parallel with the discussions that we have had in discussing the Bill. Do the Government intend to remain part of the strategy and programme outlined by the Commission in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—and, if so, how? If we are not an integral part of the European space programme, what impact would that have on our viability as a spaceport centre, compared to spaceports located within the European family?
These are questions to which, “It’ll be alright on the night”, is not an answer. We need to know whether the Government’s policy is not a journey into space but simply a leap in the dark. I beg to move.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declared an interest at the beginning of Committee and feel that that it is appropriate to do so again. I live in sight of Prestwick Airport, which has an active interest in the Bill and is an ideal site for the licensing of the first UK spaceport. I notice that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who was in his seat at the beginning of this debate, and my noble friend Lord Lang, who remains in his seat, have been very active supporters of the Ayrshire growth strategy and the interests of the airport in being so licensed.
I will focus briefly on paragraph (3) of the amendment: the importance of the Secretary of State laying,
“a report of the assessment before Parliament within one year of this Act passing, and once in each of the five calendar years following”.
Looking at the five items listed under new Clause 1(2). I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would agree that the wider importance of collaboration not just with Europe but internationally is critical to ensure the economic success of the industry. I believe that a spaceport in the UK is a key development to unlock the potential for economic growth related to the space industry for the whole of the UK. As the first spaceport in Europe, it could be the catalyst for a whole new launch industry, and everything that flows from that. We will need to co-operate with Europe on all these areas if we are to achieve that objective. Grants of some £10 million here or there are frankly nothing compared with the huge development costs associated with this industry. I hope that the Government will be serious about getting involved.
At a time when my noble friend the Minister is looking to ensure economic growth during the Brexit period, and when significant infrastructure projects are being funded, surely a significant commitment to the spaceport is a sensible investment, and is small in overall terms. But it would be a major catalyst to ensure that this project happens, as would the ongoing relationship with Europe. I would be grateful if my noble friend could comment on this and recognise the vital importance of a significant, wide opportunity to bring together the vested interests in the economic success of this project—which, in addition to Europe, I would add are: a clear understanding of the range of trade and technical issues with the United States and the acquisition of funding required to deliver the spaceport and spaceflight operations. With that in mind, I hope that the Minister is looking at special-purpose vehicles rather than the straightforward grant process in order for operators to undertake activities and operations from the UK—in other words, to have a wide range of partners, including the Government and the Scottish Government but also private sector operations and organisations. Financial guarantees and an insurance cap will be absolutely essential.
I close by saying that we need a strong level of government support and a strong level of co-operation with Europe to achieve these objectives. This will be a highly competitive global market. I fear that we may have a hollow Bill, which might be a great exemplar of regulatory, legal and structural support—but if we do not address the issue I have raised, it will remain hollow. We as a country should not allow ourselves to miss this opportunity. If we do, we will be left with an Act of Parliament promoting an industry that never takes off.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, we debated a similar amendment in Committee. The Government said in response that they would work to ensure that we got the best deal with the EU to support strong growth in the sector, but that they did not consider that including provisions related to the EU negotiations would improve the Bill or the support that the Bill, which is about regulation of UK space activities and suborbital activities, would provide to the sector. The Government went on to say that it would be damaging to the UK’s negotiating position with the EU if information on the potential economic consequences of leaving the EU was disclosed.
The difficulty the Government have is that their whole argument for bringing this skeletal Bill forward at this time—one year before discussions on the detailed and extensive secondary legislation start, and nearly two years before that crucial secondary legislation is considered by Parliament—is to end uncertainty for the space industry by showing that the Government intend to provide a structure for UK space activities and suborbital activities. Surely, however, part of the uncertainty at present is the impact our departure from the EU, and the terms on which we depart, will have on the UK space industry, and thus on investment decisions.
If the objective really is to remove uncertainty, as opposed to producing the Bill at this time to fill up the gaps in parliamentary business left by the Government’s almost non-existent legislative programme, why are they not prepared to reduce the uncertainty over the potential impact on the industry of our withdrawal from the EU by providing an assessment of what that impact could be? The amendment calls for a report of the assessment to be laid before Parliament within one year of the Act passing or on the day on which it is passed if that assessment has already been undertaken. Surely such an assessment would also be of real value to all the parties concerned when the discussions start on the crucial regulations that will provide the important details that are sadly missing from the Bill.
Once again, when discussions on the regulations start, why are the Government declining to provide the parties concerned with details of the not insignificant issue of the impact on the space industry and on the Bill as a result of our departure from the EU?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the UK space industry is a global success story. I am grateful for the productive debate we had in Committee, which will ensure the Bill puts this country at the forefront of new space services.
The Government continue to invest in the success of the UK space sector—for example, we recently invested more than £100 million in new satellite test facilities at Harwell, and manufacture and test facilities for rocket engines at Westcott in Buckinghamshire. As we discussed, another measure of our support to the UK space sector will be through our negotiations with the EU on future collaboration on the EU space programmes. The UK has played a major part in developing the main EU space programmes, Galileo and Copernicus, which have supported the rapid growth of the UK space sector and contributed directly to our prosperity and security. We are working to ensure we get the best deal with the EU to support strong growth in the sector. Last month, the Government published a science and innovation discussion paper and an external security discussion paper. Both set out the Government’s wish to discuss options for future arrangements in the EU space programmes.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan asked about continued support for the space industry. The European Space Agency programmes will continue to play an important role in delivering the UK national space objectives and, in December last year, the UK negotiated an investment of more than €1.4 billion over the next five years in ESA space initiatives. This sustained investment, alongside our industrial strategy, will ensure that we build on the strengths of the UK’s growing space industry. The UK’s membership of the European Space Agency will not be affected by the UK leaving the EU.
The Government hold a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis of the impact of leaving the EU on sectors of the UK economy, including the UK’s space industry. This is contained in a range of documents developed at different times since the referendum. The analysis in this area is constantly evolving and being updated based on our regular discussions with industry and our negotiations with the EU. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said in his Written Statement on 7 November, the intention is to provide this information to the Exiting the EU Select Committee as soon as possible, and within three weeks of the date of that Statement.
My noble friend Lord Callanan has confirmed to the House that we anticipate sharing the same information on the same basis with the Lords EU Committee as with the House of Commons Select Committee, subject to our being able to agree the terms of that disclosure. Given that this evidence will be published in the coming weeks, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We look forward to this information being gathered together into one clear document, as at the moment it is scattered among many documents. I am sure that not only the EU Committee but the whole House will read it with great interest.
This is not a hostile amendment but one that genuinely searches after facts. A generation of us—not including the Minister—remember our last great adventure into the space industry with Blue Streak and Black Arrow over 40 years ago. I also exclude my noble friend on these Benches from that. I had better not go any further: I remember Blue Streak and Black Arrow and finding out that this was too expensive a game for us to go it alone. As we take forward what is still a very exciting industry—the Minister herself announced a number of new facets—we need to ensure that we are at its cutting edge and do not miss this chance. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“( ) the effect on the environment and on local communities of activities connected with the operation of spaceflight activities or the operation of a spaceport as licensed under this Act;”
Lord Rosser
Amendment 2 is another amendment that we discussed in Committee. Currently, the Bill provides that the regulator must take into account,
“any environmental objectives set by the Secretary of State”,
when exercising the powers given to it under the Bill. Our amendment adds a wider environmental duty; namely, that the regulator must take into account,
“the effect on the environment and on local communities of activities connected with the operation of spaceflight activities or the operation of a spaceport as licensed under this Act”.
In other words, this consideration would not be solely dependent on what the Secretary of State of the day decided should or should not be laid down as environmental objectives for the regulator to take into account.
The Government were not enthusiastic about our amendment in Committee, arguing that environmental and local community considerations were already covered by the provisions of Clause 2(2)(c) and (e) and local planning processes. However, the Government appeared to accept that a person with exemption from an operator licence would not be covered by some of the provisions of Clause 2(2) since the regulator would not be involved in issuing a licence.
The importance of taking into account the effect of spaceflight activities and the operation of a spaceport on the environment and local communities needs to be made much clearer in the Bill. It is too important an issue to be left open to potentially different interpretations of the less than precise wording currently in the Bill or to the whim of Secretaries of State as to what environmental objectives they decide to set or not to set. I expressed the hope in Committee that the Government might feel able to be more positive on this issue during the Bill’s later stages. In moving my amendment, I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate some movement on this point when she responds.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to be able to add my name to Amendment 2. Before I speak to it, I welcome the Government’s Amendment 9, because it adds to Schedule 1 both noise and emissions as factors that should be taken into account when granting a licence. That is a step forward. However, it is still a narrow interpretation of the problems that I anticipate local communities and the slightly wider area might encounter. If these spaceports are a success—across the House we very much hope that they will be—they will have an impact on local communities and on the environment that those communities currently enjoy. These are by definition remote and peaceful places at this moment, and they will be significantly less remote and less peaceful after the development of a spaceport.
Other potential issues include the following. First, there is the issue of visual amenity in what could well be beautiful areas. These will be large installations and will not easily blend into the landscape. Secondly, there is the impact on local roads. I do not know the situation in Scotland, but I know that the roads in Wales are hardly even small motorways in that area. We are talking about moving large, wide loads across the country and along roads, often moving them slowly on to the site, and that will be disruptive. I remember how the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in a memorable phrase, described a rocket as a controlled explosion. There is also potentially air pollution, as well as noise pollution.
Finally, I point to the basics of many of the issues and problems arising from planning applications for large or even small developments. Clearing a site to establish a spaceport could well impact on existing wildlife, and the ongoing use of the spaceport could, for example, disturb nesting birds.
I do not want to be a doom-monger but we need to be realistic. The enthusiasm of the Welsh and Scottish Governments may not be shared by local people. Any of us here who have been local councillors— I was a councillor for 17 years, albeit a long time ago—know that what I have outlined are routine planning issues that, appropriately, get in the way of wholesale development that does not take into consideration the amenities of local people and the environment beyond. Spaceports should not be exempt from the rules, and that needs to be flagged in this Bill.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I recognise noble Lords’ concerns that there are currently no specific provisions in the Bill regarding the environmental impacts of spaceports and spaceflight activities on local communities, particularly in relation to noise and emissions. However, Clause 2 requires the regulator to take into account the environmental objectives set by the Government. I know that some noble Lords have raised concerns that future objectives cannot be predicted—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised that again today—but the inclusion of that requirement was intended to promote environmental protection, as the regulator will have to take account of existing guidance, such as Defra’s air quality plan.
As noble Lords will be aware, there already exists a comprehensive body of environmental and planning legislation that spaceports and spaceflight operators will need to comply with independently of the requirements under the Bill. For example, an environmental impact assessment may be required for airport-related development under Schedule 2 to the environmental impact assessment regulations where it is,
“likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location”.
In such cases, the local planning authority will be obliged to scrutinise the environmental impact, taking into account the concerns of local communities such as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has just raised. An environmental assessment will be required as part of any airspace changes.
However, there might be circumstances where a particular activity could be carried out without the need for an environmental impact assessment under planning and airspace rules. The purpose of Amendment 9 is to put on the face of the Bill a licence condition that the regulator could impose—for example, where an environmental impact or other assessment has not already been undertaken.
I appreciate that this amendment does not impose a mandatory requirement for the spaceport or spaceflight operator to make an environmental assessment; nor does it require the regulator to take into account environmental and local impacts, as Amendment 2 seeks to do. However, it makes very clear the Government’s intention that some form of assessment of noise and emissions should take place, and it does this without creating requirements in the Bill that may duplicate existing requirements to carry out environmental assessments under other enactments.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords of the Government’s intention of ensuring that environmental impacts are assessed, either as part of the planning process or as a condition of a licence under the Bill. However, I am aware that your Lordships do not think that this goes far enough, as they have made clear today—the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made a very fair point about roads and road access. Therefore, I assure the House that the Government are considering introducing in the other place a further amendment that will require spaceport and spaceflight applicants to submit a noise and emissions assessment, and that regulators take this into account when deciding the licence application. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her reply but perhaps I may inquire a bit further. Government Amendment 9 provides that a licence under this legislation can include a condition that an assessment must be done of the impact that noise and emissions caused by the activities being licensed will have on local communities. If that amendment is agreed—we are certainly happy with it—it will then be included in the Bill when it goes to the Commons. I am not entirely clear from what the Minister has said what the Government are still considering as an amendment they might bring forward in the Commons. Will there be an amendment referring to the wider environmental duty and the impact on local communities, or is that not what the Minister was saying? I am not clear what the Government are considering bringing forward in the Commons.
Baroness Sugg
The amendment we are considering taking forward is requiring spaceports and applicants to carry out the environmental assessment, which will of course take into account the effect on the local community, and requiring regulators to take that into account.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I did not understand the matter properly first time round, but in the light of that clarification from the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sugg
“( ) any space debris mitigation guidelines issued by an international organisation in which the government of the United Kingdom is represented.”
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, Clause 2 sets out the overarching duties of the regulator in carrying out its functions under the Bill. Subsection (1) establishes the duty of securing public safety as the regulator’s priority, while subsection (2) lists the other factors that the regulator must take into account while carrying out its functions. There is no hierarchy in the matters listed in subsection (2).
Amendments 3 and 8 to subsection (2) and Schedule 1 are in response to the helpful debate on space debris on the first day of Committee. In relation to an amendment tabled to Clause 12, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, highlighted the very real risks and challenges posed by space debris. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, recognised the work of the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee—the IADC—of which the UK is a member, which has issued guidelines in this area. My noble friend Lord Willetts acknowledged the UK’s expertise in this area.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the points made by my noble friend Lord Callanan during this debate. The UK Space Agency already considers matters relating to space debris and the guidelines issued by the IADC, and is an active member in carrying out its regulatory function under the Outer Space Act 1986. Through the IADC, the UK Government remain fully committed to implementing and influencing best practice to protect the space environment. Furthermore, the Bill enables regulators to include conditions within licences that relate to the disposal of a satellite at the end of its operational life and compliance with debris mitigation guidelines.
In the light of the Government’s commitment to the IADC and following further reflection on the points raised in Committee, we are tabling this amendment, which would place a requirement in the Bill for a regulator to consider space debris mitigation guidelines when exercising its functions. These guidelines are issued by an international organisation to which the UK is represented. This wording will cover international bodies, including the IADC, and the International Organisation for Standardization’s orbital debris co-ordination working group, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in Committee. I beg to move Amendment 3.
Lord Rosser
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke eloquently in Committee on the issue of his party and pavement politics, before referring to his concerns about space debris and the need to bring it back safely—although he did not say whether he was looking for weekly or fortnightly collections. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, considers that the Government’s amendments address the legitimate concerns he raised, they will of course have our support.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I welcome the amendments. They are a first step in the right direction. Although I may have rather light-heartedly introduced the issue at the last stage, we have only to look at what we have done to the sea and to Everest to see how easily important places can be polluted. For that reason, it is important that this is on the agenda.
As was indicated in our last debate, work is being done about this problem by British technology companies. Although it may be the less glamorous end of space travel, clearing up space debris may well be another cutting-edge area that we can exploit as this expands.
The IADC is a representative body. Its membership includes all the big players—Russia, the United States, China, ourselves, the European Space Agency, India, Italy, France, Japan, Ukraine. It is the right body to take these matters forward and the amendment is welcome.
Baroness Sugg
I thank noble Lords for their support for the amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who raised this issue in Committee and has put his name to the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
4: Clause 9, page 7, line 37, leave out “to (4)” and insert “and (3)”
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.
I have read my speech in Committee, which was very good and persuasive. The trouble is that it was also unsuccessful and so, as a student of the Companion, I will not repeat it. However, I would like to say a final word or two on safety. I thank the Minister for the time she and her predecessor spent with us discussing this matter and for the letter she sent us on two points, to which I will come later.
NASA has been in the space business since I was a boy—and that was a long time ago. I have had a brief look at its website and, as far as I can see, it spends £2.9 billion a year on safety and security. However, despite its efforts, it has regularly killed people. The early rocket-powered flight experiments had fatalities; it is often forgotten that the moon programme killed three astronauts on the ground when there was a fire in the capsule; the shuttle programme managed only 135 missions, two crashed catastrophically and 14 people died. That was probably as well as could be done with all that effort, but we are asking the CAA and/or the United Kingdom Space Agency to tackle the same task. I am afraid that I am somewhat pessimistic about what the result will be in the early stages of any UK space programme. I hope in developing the skills they will need that they will spend a lot of time with our American cousins, in particular, stealing as much knowledge as is possible.
As I said earlier, I thank the Minister for the time she found for us. She was kind enough to send us a letter giving assurances about the role of the HSE and single point accountability with respect to safety. I will not repeat the letter because I am assured she is happy to read those assurances into her response. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, names of Members from our Benches are not attached to these amendments, but we would like to associate ourselves with all four of them. I want to say a few words about safety because it is obviously not in the industry’s interest to operate unsafely; in fact, quite the opposite. It would be a way of hastening its end. So it is not that the industry will set out to operate in a cavalier manner, and that is not what these amendments imply. From my experience of working in industries that have an inherent risk but are not necessarily as risky as the space industry, the greater prominence that safety is given in their operations at every level right up to senior management and in terms of the supervision of organisations, the more likely it is that they will be inherently safe. You can rely on processes and people on the ground to operate safely because of course it is in their interests to do so, but it is always more successful when safety is elevated to the highest possible level. It is with that in mind that we support these amendments.
Baroness Sugg
I thank noble Lords for their comments on Clauses 9 and 10, given their central importance to the Bill. In consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to address the points he raised on the first day in Committee. Following that letter, I would like to take the opportunity to explain further the role of the Health and Safety Executive in regulating space flight activities under the Space Industry Bill.
Clause 9 imposes one of the key requirements of the Bill that a regulator cannot grant a licence for spaceflight activities unless satisfied that the operator has carried out an assessment of the risks to the health and safety of persons taking part in spaceflight activities and that the operator has taken steps to ensure that risks to all other persons is as low as reasonably practicable. Furthermore, Clause 9(4)(b) means that even after all steps have been taken to reduce risk to as low as is reasonably practicable, spaceflight will not be allowed where the risk to public health and safety is unacceptable. The Bill places the onus on the regulator to be satisfied that risks are as low as reasonably practicable and that they are acceptable, but the operator must assess the risks and manage them.
The provisions in the Bill have been developed in full collaboration with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that they align with existing UK health and safety principles on the management of risks. I should like to recap that under this Bill, the Secretary of State is the default spaceflight regulatory authority. The UK Space Agency will perform regulatory functions on the Secretary of State’s behalf, including regulating the procurement of satellite launches from other countries as well as satellite operations from the UK. The UK Space Agency will also regulate all vertically launched rockets covered under this Bill and all space activities. Finally, the UK Space Agency will license and regulate spaceports capable of vertical launch and range control services for launch to orbit.
It is our intention to use Clause 15 to appoint the Civil Aviation Authority as a spaceflight regulator for suborbital spaceplanes and spaceports capable of horizontal launch. The Government’s approach will enable us to build on the existing experience and expertise of the two organisations. I am confident that these bodies will have the capability to evaluate risk assessments and assess whether the risks have been reduced to as low as is reasonably practicable and whether they are acceptable. In this, the bodies will be assisted by the Health and Safety Executive.
I should clarify that we do not intend to appoint the Health and Safety Executive as a regulator under the Bill. This is because it is not a specialist transport, aviation or space regulator and has no experience or expertise in flight safety, space launches or air navigation. However, it is already a regulator for health and safety at work under current health and safety legislation. Accordingly, it is designated as a qualifying health and safety authority under Clause 20 and may be called upon to provide specified advice or assistance in connection with the regulator’s functions relating to safety.
Independently of the Bill, the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 and associated legislation will apply to spaceports and spaceflight activities as they would to any other workplace, while the Health and Safety Executive would retain lead responsibility for the regulation of safety on the ground. New major hazard sites such as spaceports would also require planning consent from the appropriate planning authority, and the Health and Safety Executive would act as a statutory consultee to the appropriate planning authorities.
However, the UK Space Agency or Civil Aviation Authority will retain responsibility for licensing the spaceport. This aligns with the approach under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation Order 2016. Under these provisions, the Civil Aviation Authority has overall responsibility for aviation safety. The divisions of responsibility between the CAA and the Health and Safety Executive are set out in a memorandum of understanding. We anticipate that the spaceflight regulators and the Health and Safety Executive will similarly set out the division of responsibilities.
I emphasise that although it is our intention that there be two spaceflight regulators, it is vital for accountability and safety that for any particular licence application under the Bill, there should be a single regulator responsible for deciding that application. Noble Lords raised that issue today and in Committee. In making its licensing decision, the UK Space Agency may consult the CAA—and vice versa—but that decision will rest with one body in each case.
Giving the Health and Safety Executive an additional specific role—certifying the adequacy of the safety arrangements relating to persons not taking part in spaceflight activities or for public safety in spaceports—would confuse roles and responsibilities for licensing spaceflight and associated activities. The Health and Safety Executive does not carry out this function of certification under any other legislation and does not wish to do so under this one.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords that our proposed approach is consistent with existing health and safety practice and reflects the view of the Health and Safety Executive. I acknowledge the sad history of space activity, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe; I assure him that safety is at the heart of the Bill. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I too have spent most of my career in safety-critical environments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his support. It is not directly related to the Bill, but I will take this opportunity to agree with his statements about the essence of a good safety organisation. It is crucial that safety goes from the top to the bottom and that the chief executives and the board, right down to every worker, know that safety is part of their responsibility. I hope that attitude will go through this new industry, especially as we move into the manned spaceflight phase.
I thank the Minister for her assurances. It is important that we have clear, single point accountability among regulators. If it is in the public domain, I would value a copy of the memorandum between the HSE and the appropriate regulators. With those few comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sugg
“6A_ Conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the impact that noise and emissions from spaceflight activities authorised by the licence are expected to have on communities in the vicinity.”
Baroness Sugg
“( ) The regulator may consent to a licence being transferred to a person (“the transferee”) only if satisfied that—(a) consenting to the transfer—(i) will not impair the national security of the United Kingdom;(ii) is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom;(iii) is not contrary to the national interest;(b) the transferee has the financial and technical resources to do the things authorised by the licence, and is otherwise a fit and proper person to do them;(c) the persons who are expected to do, on the transferee’s behalf, any of the things authorised by the licence are fit and proper persons to do them.”
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, Clause 14 enables a licensee to transfer their licence to another party, provided the regulator has given written consent. The provision enables a new body or company to take over the licence without starting a licence application completely afresh. In Committee the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, tabled an amendment seeking to clarify that the eligibility provisions in Clause 8(3) would also apply to the person to whom a licence is being transferred under Clause 14.
It is helpful to briefly recap what Clause 8 requires before a licence can be granted. Under subsection (2), the regulator must be satisfied that granting a licence will not impair national security, is consistent with the UK’s international obligations and would not be contrary to our national interest. Subsection (3) then sets certain eligibility criteria for licence holders, with which the regulator must be satisfied before granting a licence. The criteria ensure that a licence holder has the necessary financial and technical resources to do the things authorised by the licence and that both the licence holder and employees and agents acting on the licence holder’s behalf are fit and proper persons to do the things authorised by the licence.
It has always been the Government’s intention that the regulator will need to be satisfied that the tests set out in Clauses 8(2) and 8(3) would apply to the transfer of a licence under Clause 14, as it does to the initial grant of a licence. The amendment makes the Government’s intentions clear in the Bill and puts this beyond any doubt.
I thank noble Lords for their original amendment. I hope they will welcome the fact that we have reflected and that the amendment goes further than previously proposed. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for the Government’s Amendment 10, which, as she said, addresses an issue we raised in Committee and will put in the Bill that the regulator may consent to a licence being transferred only if the transfer and the person to whom it is being transferred meet the same tests as laid out for the granting of the licence in Clause 8. In Committee I asked whether the consent of the Secretary of State would also be required for a licence to be transferred, bearing in mind that under Clause 8(4) the consent of the Secretary of State is required for the granting of a licence. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the then Minister, said he would reflect on that and come back to me. He may have done so, but if he has I am afraid I have forgotten what he said. Is the Minister able to say now or later what the answer is to that question?
Baroness Sugg
Both the regulator and the Secretary of State would need to be satisfied that the transfer of a licence was appropriate.
Lord McNally
My Lords, this is a good example of the Lords’ way of doing things in action. The Labour Front Bench noticed what they thought was a weakness; the Minister said he would go away and reflect. The Government have reflected and come back with a solution that makes the Bill better.
Baroness Randerson
“( ) Before any regulations that confer onto the CAA any additional functions are made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining—(a) whether the CAA has sufficient resources to undertake the additional proposed functions; and(b) whether additional funds would be made available to ensure that the CAA is able to undertake the proposed additional functions, or any other changes to its remit.”
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, the amendment relates to the position of the CAA. We tabled a similar amendment in Committee. As promised, I went away and read Hansard carefully, because at the end of the debate I was still not clear about resources. The then Minister addressed a charging regime for assessing and issuing licences for monitoring and so on. Clause 61 gives the CAA and the space agency the powers to charge for their services. We can safely assume that they will charge the commercial rate to cover their costs, but my reservations were also about the development and expansion of the CAA to take on its new role prior to it becoming commercially viable. That aspect was not addressed in the Government’s response in Committee.
I was very pleased to receive a letter from the chief executive of the CAA setting out its viewpoint. As well as referring to the CAA’s power to set charges, it addresses the preparation issue. It says:
“Until the Space Flight legislation is in force the DfT is funding the CAA team that has been established to focus solely on supporting the Government with the development of the Bill and the regulatory framework, so the CAA will be ready to regulate this UK industry once the statutory powers are in place”.
I am very grateful for that additional information and I am glad to hear that the Department for Transport is funding that team, but I press the Minister for a little more detail. I find it quite difficult to get a handle on how big this team is. Perhaps she could quantify the funding that is in place to assist the CAA. Can she provide some detail on training? In working towards such a regulation, the CAA would undoubtedly look at parallels; for example, the regulation of normal aviation. However, it is surely looking across the world at how other countries regulate the space industry. I assume that there is an element of seeking information from other countries across the world, if not of sending employees to train there. I would be grateful for a bit more information to flesh out the assurances that I received from the CAA. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I support the general spirit and direction of the amendment. The task that the CAA and the space agency will face will be very difficult. I hope that the Government will be able to give us further assurances that resources will be made available to power this learning curve. I hope that there will be enough time for the skills to be in place before real applications come before the regulator. It is easy to underestimate just how difficult this task will be for the CAA and the space agency.
Lord Fox
The nature of this work, certainly in the early stages, could be quite lumpy. In earlier discussions —at Second Reading, I think—the Minister talked about perhaps only 12 launches a year. There could be moments of great intensity of activity followed by no activity and therefore no income. How will the regulator maintain this level of expertise through what could be feast and famine during that process?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her comments on Clause 15 and the role of the CAA. As we know, the aviation sector is facing many challenges at the moment, particularly with the introduction of new technologies such as drones and spaceflight, but I can reassure noble Lords that the CAA is in strong position to deal with those challenges.
As the noble Baroness has told us, the chief executive of the CAA has written to her confirming this and, as he explained in the letter, the CAA already has already established a dedicated space team. That team started in 2012 and since then has grown in size and experience, and has worked closely to develop the Space Industry Bill. The team is building on its aviation expertise in areas such as airports and airspace to develop the capability to regulate spaceports and suborbital activities.
The noble Baroness asked what international conversations the CAA might have had. It has established good working relationships with other countries. The UK Space Agency has been building on its relationship with the United States Federal Aviation Administration, drawing on the United States’ vast experience in overseeing flight operations.
The department provides sufficient resource to ensure sufficient delivery in this area. The moneys will vary depending on the nature of the work at different times— for example, on air space consideration or international comparisons—so I am not able to give a figure today. The noble Baroness asked about funding. The Civil Aviation Authority will eventually be able to recover its costs directly from industry. Until that point, the Department for Transport will continue to provide funding.
We are confident that the CAA will have the necessary resources and the appropriate expertise to regulate the new sector. I hope that the letter and my words give the noble Baroness the necessary reassurance regarding the capacity of the CAA to regulate the activities alongside its existing aviation functions. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 11.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, on the basis that the CAA appears to be satisfied with its situation, I will, of course, not pursue this any further at this stage, but I would be grateful if the Minister looked again at the very specific questions I asked and, one way or another, passed those small details to me. I am interested in understanding a little better the process that will be involved. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sugg
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the amendments in this group are minor and technical amendments which are required to address drafting issues in the Bill.
First, I turn to Amendments 12, 13, 29, 30 and 38. Currently, the definition of “enactment” in Clause 68 provides that it includes an enactment contained in Northern Ireland legislation. The Interpretation Act 1978 provides in Section 5 and Schedule 1 that unless the contrary intention appears, the term “enactment” used in legislation does not include Acts of the Scottish Parliament or legislation made under those Acts. As it is the policy intention that references to “enactment” in the Bill should cover legislation made throughout the United Kingdom, we propose to amend the clause so that the term “enactment”, where used, refers to secondary legislation and Scottish and Welsh legislation, as well as retaining the reference to Northern Ireland. I reassure noble Lords that official conversations have taken place with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and all are content with the amendments the Government are tabling on Report. There are a number of consequential amendments to Clause 51 and Schedule 5 to replace uses of “enactment”. Those references are to particular Acts of the UK Parliament rather than to legislation in general, so it is not appropriate for the definition of “enactment” to apply in those cases.
Amendment 39 ensures that English, Welsh and Northern Ireland partnerships can be prosecuted in Scotland. Currently, Clause 57, which deals with offences by partnerships, only extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is set out in the full heading of Clause 57, and Scotland is explicitly excluded from the extent of the clause in Clause 70(2). The Government initially considered that Clause 57 did not need to extend to Scotland because partnerships are treated differently in Scots law. Existing legislation already makes similar provision for Scotland to that in Clause 57; Clause 70 was drafted accordingly. However, it has since come to light that while there is no need for the Bill to make provision for Scottish partnerships, the current draft presents the risk that there would be no power to prosecute an English, Welsh or Northern Ireland partnership in Scotland. Since it is the policy intention that these prosecutions should be within the power of the Scottish courts, we propose to delete Clause 70(2).
Finally, Amendment 40 includes an additional provision in the Bill to allow this legislation to be extended to Crown dependencies and overseas territories, as modified, by way of an Order in Council. The Bill has the potential to bring new business opportunities in an expanding space market, bringing in new revenue, jobs, training opportunities and other benefits to local areas. It is an important principle that the potential benefits of the Bill are accessible across not just across the United Kingdom but in our Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Amendment 40 will allow the Government of a Crown dependency or overseas territory to utilise the regulatory framework the Bill creates for spaceflight activities and to develop a spaceport if they would like to do so. I beg to move Amendment 12.
Lord Rosser
May I ask a bit more about government Amendment 40 in relation to Crown dependencies and overseas territories? As I understand it, this is a fairly standard clause in Acts of Parliament, but perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is so or it is something of a rarity.
My understanding of the Minister’s concluding comments is that a Crown dependency or overseas territory, if it wished, could seek to have a spaceport on its territory. However, would government Amendment 40 be activated, in the sense of seeking the Order in Council, by the British Government or could it be activated only if so requested by a UK Crown dependency or overseas territory itself, or could it indeed be activated at the request of a company or even another country? What would be the criteria for determining whether or not the provisions of the Act should be extended as provided for in government Amendment 40?
Would the provisions of the Act be so extended under the terms of government Amendment 40 if it was felt that it worsened the prospects of the development and expansion of the UK space industry in this country—even in Prestwick? If the provisions were so extended, could companies from any country in the world establish spaceflight facilities in a UK Crown dependency or overseas territory, or would it be restricted to British companies, at least as the lead company? Finally, could we have an assurance that extending the provisions of the Act to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any British overseas territory would not give any companies, whether private or state-owned, any tax advantages, particularly in the form of lower tax, compared to the tax regime that would apply to a space industry company operating under the Act’s provisions in this country?
Lord Fox
The noble Lord has stolen many of my lines. There seem to be a lot of loose ends here. I reiterate his question about how much of the Bill applies to a Crown dependency in the event that it builds a spaceport. Are we looking just at the right to do it, or are all the other provisions of the Bill in place in a Crown dependency situation? The point that the noble Lord made very well is: are we in danger of allowing people to set up low-cost competitors in an industry that we are hoping to run from the United Kingdom mainland?
Baroness Sugg
I will try to answer as many of those questions as I can. Yes, this is a standard clause. It was not included originally because we wanted to conduct a consultation with Crown dependencies and overseas territories, which we completed over the summer. That is now done and we are including it as a government amendment.
On who can enact this, it would be done at the request of the Crown dependency or overseas territory, which would then be subject to all the legislation in the Act. But ultimately the creation of a spaceport is going to be a commercial decision, so the UK Government would not take an active role in deciding where it would be. Currently we are not aware of any Crown dependencies or overseas territories that wish to undertake this activity.
Baroness Sugg
That money is available to people who are currently putting together a case to create a spaceport. As I said, there is currently no interest from overseas territories or Crown dependencies, so that money would not be used by them.
On the tax regime, I am afraid that I do not have the full answer. I will have to get back to the noble Lord.
Lord Rosser
I appreciate that this has come up suddenly but I made one or two other points that I do not think the Minister has responded to. For example, would the provision be extended to companies from any country in the world, or would it be restricted to British companies? Could it be agreed, only to find that it is to the detriment of companies wanting to set up spaceflight facilities or spaceports in this country?
Baroness Sugg
Any international company could request spaceflight activity within any of the ports but, as I say, it will ultimately be a commercial decision as to whether these activities take place. We would not play an active role in that.
Lord Rosser
Is that really consistent with a Bill that is designed to promote the industry in this country?
Baroness Sugg
The Bill is designed to promote the industry in this country and that is what we are focusing on. The addition of this provision just allows that in the future, should there be any interest, the Crown dependencies and overseas territories could take on the legislation framework and develop the activity.
Baroness Sugg
Lord Rosser
“( ) An enforcement authorisation must be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours, following the 48 hour period under subsection (7) in which the enforcement authorisation remains in force.”
Lord Rosser
Once again, a similar amendment was discussed in Committee. Clause 31 provides for a justice of the peace to be able to issue an enforcement warrant authorising entry or direct action in relation to the irregular or unauthorised carrying out of,
“spaceflight activities, operating a spaceport or providing range control services”.
Clause 32 provides for such enforcement authorisation to be given by the Secretary of State in an emergency where there are safety, national security or contravention of international obligation considerations at stake, and urgent action is needed. Such an enforcement authorisation would remain in force for 48 hours from the time when it was granted and would permit a named person to do,
“anything necessary … for protecting … national security … securing compliance with … international obligations”,
or protecting health and safety. However, despite these wide-ranging powers there is no provision in the Bill for any judicial oversight, as there is with the involvement of a justice of the peace in respect of an enforcement warrant in a non-emergency situation.
The House of Lords Constitution Committee has expressed its concerns on this point. The committee said that,
“we are concerned that such wide-ranging and potentially draconian powers would be exercisable without anticipatory or rapid post-hoc judicial involvement. We draw attention to these enforcement authorisations and call on the Government to consider post-hoc judicial approval of their use”.
This amendment would provide for an enforcement authorisation to be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours, following the 48-hour period to which I have already referred and for which the enforcement authorisation remains in force.
In Committee the Government said they felt their approach was proportionate and contained sufficient safeguards to address the concerns raised while retaining the flexibility necessary to deal with the serious risks that the enforcement authorisation process was designed to address. I said in Committee that I would reflect on what the Government had said. I have done so; I hope the Government have done likewise and reflected on what was said during the debate, including the following points.
First, the Constitution Committee did not feel moved by the Government’s arguments, including on reducing the period of the enforcement authorisation to 48 hours. Secondly, there is no check to ensure that the draconian powers given under Clause 32 have not been abused—and, if there is no check and they have been abused once, it is highly likely that they will be abused again. Thirdly, the argument used by the Government in Committee about the alleged bureaucracy of having to find a justice of the peace is just not credible; and, fourthly, the Government’s argument in Committee that a review by a justice of the peace would place an unnecessary and disproportionate burden and cost on the judicial system really is clutching at straws. Perhaps the Government, if they are not going to change their stance, can tell us what the costs would be and how they would measure incurring those minimal costs against the abuse of the draconian powers provided for in Clause 32.
I hope that the Government will be able to say something helpful in reply and will go beyond reiterating the arguments they advanced in Committee, which clearly did not address the concerns of the Constitution Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I once again associate myself fully with the comments that have just been made. I am still struggling with the “anything necessary” line. Having defended those words so spiritedly in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is now escaping. Are we looking at enforcement at an economic level or at a national security level? I suspect there are already the necessary powers, were this to be a national security issue. There are sufficient powers to act with sufficient speed, with or without judicial oversight, in the event that it was a national security emergency that needed to be dealt with quickly. Therefore, it seems that we are looking at a commercial emergency—such a thing exists—and on that basis it seems to me that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, are entirely reasonable and we should not invest these draconian powers because we do not need to in dealing with that kind of issue.
Baroness Sugg
I thank noble Lords for raising the question of emergency powers again. Since their interventions in Committee, we have been reflecting on this provision. I will do my best not to make all the same arguments that we made in Committee.
This amendment seeks to require that an enforcement authorisation issued by the Secretary of State is evaluated by a justice of the peace within 48 hours after the 48 hours that the authorisation has been in force. The enforcement authorisation issued under Clause 32 may be issued only under certain circumstances, which do not include a commercial emergency. They are: when there is an urgent case to act to protect national security; to ensure compliance with international obligations; or to protect people’s health and safety. The authorisation must be issued in writing to a named person and specify the action authorised to be taken. The authorisation itself will remain in force for 48 hours only. This reflects the urgent nature of the action considered necessary and requires it to be taken within a short period.
We referred to similar powers of other regulators in Committee, and we have tried to look across other legislation to ensure that we have the right balance here. Some of these powers are not subject to any review once they have been exercised. There is a precedent for this approach in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which allows officers to enter premises without a warrant where it is suspected that there has been a breach of legislation, where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the entry, and where it is not practicable to give notice or where the entry is for the purpose of surveillance. The reasons for which an authorisation under Clause 32 may be issued are strictly related to emergency situations, and therefore are more restricted than the circumstances in the Consumer Rights Act. I should also clarify that improper use of the power by an appointed person under Clause 32 would be subject to judicial review, so it can be challenged if necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, brought to noble Lords’ attention the fact that warrants issued under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 are subject to approval by a judicial commissioner within three working days of the warrant being issued. This is appropriate because these warrants remain in place for five days and relate to the sensitive practices of targeted interception, examination of the contents of communications and international assistance in such matters. This is not comparable to either the power under Clause 32 or the approach proposed by this amendment. Our advice from cross-Whitehall consultations is that there is no known precedent of a justice of the peace conducting an evaluation of an emergency power once it has been exercised.
We are also not clear what purpose evaluation by a justice of the peace would serve, as the order would be spent and the specified action taken by the time of the evaluation. It is also not clear what, if any, follow-up action would be available. I am afraid I cannot address the noble Lord’s concerns directly but we are continuing to reflect and will keep working with colleagues across Whitehall to ensure that we get a proportionate set of enforcement powers in the Bill, so that we can undertake spaceflight activities safely but also with regard to our national security and international obligations. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her reply and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his contribution to the debate. I find it difficult when a Government say that they cannot understand what purpose a post hoc review of their action, or of a decision by the Secretary of State to issue the enforcement authorisation and whether it has been abused, would have. Clearly, if it had been abused, that would become known. Although I agree you cannot rectify the abuse that has already occurred, the thought that it might be drawn to public attention had it taken place would act as a deterrent, certainly in the future if it happened again. So I am puzzled that the Government do not apparently understand what the purpose would be of the review suggested in the amendment and, indeed, suggested by the committee concerned.
When the Minister says that the Government are still reflecting on this, once again I am afraid I am not entirely clear what exactly they are still reflecting on, bearing in mind that the Minister has not held out—at least, that is how it appears to me—any prospect at any later stage during the Bill’s proceedings of the Government perhaps coming forward with a proposal of their own if they do not like the look of the proposal in this amendment. When the Minister indicates that the Government are still reflecting on this, are they reflecting in the sense that they may come forward at some later stage in the Bill’s progress through Parliament with a proposal of their own that deals with, or at least addresses, the issues raised in the amendment?
Baroness Sugg
As I say, we are still looking at some type of post hoc review. We are developing the options for that and trying to understand what the implications would be. That work is ongoing.
Lord Rosser
In the light of what the Minister has said about looking at a post hoc review, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 15. We put forward a series of probing amendments in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave a long and detailed response to those, which I thank him for, which helped us understand how the various clauses relating to this whole issue work together. Unfortunately, there is just one point left. It is not at all complicated, and therefore I will not make a long speech about it, but this amendment addresses that single point.
Where the damage to an uninvolved third party exceeds the cap, and the insurance, the state must meet the excess. We are talking about a new phenomenon—flying bombs of one sort or another. The potential for catastrophic damage is there. It may not be very likely, but it could happen. It is potentially significantly more dangerous than the worst conceivable civil aviation accident at present, and it cannot be right that an uninvolved third party who suffers loss does not receive full compensation.
The Government have argued effectively to the House that the industry may need a cap and that it may not get off the ground without an appropriate arrangement. We agree, but if Her Majesty’s Government limit the operator’s liability, they must commit to making up the difference, and put that commitment in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, and the earlier debate about safety, one thing that occurred to me was seeing the newsreel footage of the crash of the “Hindenburg”, just before the Second World War—a crash that virtually ended the airship as a commercial prospect. That is a useful reminder that what may be seen as the next new thing could be disastrously impacted.
The simple message, which seems so obvious, is that if entrepreneurs considering coming into the industry have unlimited liability, they will not come in. If there is no cover—particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, emphasised, for third parties—that would be totally unacceptable. The problem has been spelled out; the Government should face up to those contradictions.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, Amendment 15 relates to the liability provisions in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Callanan outlined in Committee, these provisions are vital but complex.
I would just like to clarify a point my noble friend Lord Callanan made in Committee. He said that,
“the position under the Bill is exactly the same as that in the aviation industry—that operators have an unlimited liability to indemnify government”.—[Official Report, 16/10/17; col. 434.]
While it is correct that under aviation law an operator holds an unlimited liability, an operator is not required to indemnify the Government for third-party claims brought against it.
The requirement to indemnify the Government arises in this Bill and in the Outer Space Act 1986 only because under UN space treaties the UK Government are ultimately liable for the space activities of their nationals. Operators are therefore required to indemnify the Government for any claims brought against them as a consequence of their licensed activities. I hope that the House finds this clarification helpful.
With this complexity in mind, I should like to provide further background before turning to the amendment. Clause 33(5) provides a power to make regulations that enable a regulator to specify in a licence a cap on an operator’s liability arising out of its spaceflight activities to prescribed persons or in prescribed circumstances. These persons and circumstances would be set out in regulations, but we envisage that a cap, if imposed, would be on an operator’s liability to the uninvolved general public who suffer injury or damage as a result of spaceflight activities. The uninvolved general public will have a strict liability claim against the operator.
Further work needs to be done to check the appropriateness of capping an operator’s third-party liability. We plan to issue a call for evidence on issues relating to insurance and liabilities in early 2018, following Royal Assent to the Bill.
As this liability can be capped, Clause 34(3) provides the Secretary of State with a power to indemnify a claimant in the event of injury or damage caused by spaceflight activities. This means that the Government can pay compensation to the uninvolved general public in situations where injury or damage exceeds the operator’s capped liability amount.
As we have already emphasised, we are trying to put safety at the heart of the Bill. It is designed to ensure that spaceflight activity is as safe as possible in the first place, which will minimise liability arising. But, as noble Lords have pointed out, injury or damage could arise, and if it does, it is the Government’s policy that the uninvolved general public should have easy recourse to compensation. This policy does not and should not change if an operator has a capped liability or, for example, becomes insolvent and cannot meet all its claims.
I therefore understand the concerns that have led to this amendment which seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State has to pay compensation above the capped amount to the uninvolved general public. The liability provisions in the Bill are complex and we need to ensure that amendments in this area are appropriate and achieve what they are set out to do. We are working on this and look forward to tabling an amendment similar to this one in the other place, which I hope will allay the concerns shared by noble Lords that have led to this amendment. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I think that is a win. I see the noble Baroness nodding, and I take it that the Government will be tabling an amendment in the other place. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, this takes forward a recommendation from the Science and Technology Committee in the other place that “gross negligence” should be on the face of the Bill, and that is what the amendment would do.
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for tabling this amendment, following a similar amendment that he tabled in Committee. We discussed Clause 36 in relation to the protection it affords a regulator. Having considered the persuasive points made by the noble Lord, and others, after reflecting on the wording of this new amendment, we agree that to achieve the right balance in this clause the regulator protection should not apply in cases of gross negligence, and we accept the amendment as tabled.
Lord McNally
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (4) there is “gross negligence” on the part of a person or body if—(a) the person or body is in breach of a duty of care owed under the law of negligence, and(b) the conduct constituting that breach falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the person or body in the circumstances.”
“Consultation on the licensing and insurance of small satellites
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on any consultations on the licensing and insurance of small satellites that the Government has undertaken. (2) The report under subsection (1) must outline any regulations the Secretary of State intends to bring forward as a result of any consultation undertaken.”
Lord Fox
My Lords, I am afraid that this is Groundhog Day all over again. We have discussed these issues and I will not go into the economics, save to say that there is huge potential for very high insurance costs for multi-satellite constellation launches. In Committee, the Minister said that work was in hand and would be finalised within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, so the amendment was not necessary. I feel that it is necessary because this is the make or break economically of the nano-constellation-style satellite. Without resolution of this issue, there will be no industry in this regard because it will be too expensive to launch these satellites in this country. For that reason, while the work is in hand—and I accept in good faith that it will be completed—we believe that the amendment should be agreed. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we support the general thrust of this proposal and hope that the Minister will say sufficiently warm words so that the amendment will not be pressed. I hope that she will be driven by the simple fact that the industry almost certainly will not get off the ground unless the Government can produce some assurance that appropriate legislation will be brought forward at some stage to enable small satellites to be economically effective.
Lord Deben (Con)
I look forward to my noble friend’s reply and take this opportunity to say how exemplary the Government’s response has been on a range of issues that we have raised. If they responded in this way on a lot of other issues it would be very much easier for all of us. My noble friend has indicated in her delightful and charming way that she thought these amendments were worth while. Can we extend such a response more widely so that we do not have to have acrimonious discussions and then find ourselves with an amendment which is more or less similar to what has been proposed before? This is a very good example of that. People should always say thank you, and I do so.
Baroness Sugg
I thank my noble friend for his kind comments. I hope to continue in my role as a transport Minister in an unacrimonious way. I am afraid that is as far as I can go: that is my brief.
During Committee, I was given the chance to talk about the work that the UK Space Agency is doing to improve the current licensing regime. I apologise again if this is a case of Groundhog Day: I need to reiterate that as I am afraid we still do not believe that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary. We outlined the “traffic light system” that the agency is working on and work that was being undertaken on a policy model for insurance for constellations of satellites following feedback that insuring each satellite for a set level of insurance is prohibitively expensive. We think that the traffic light system and the insurance requirements for small satellites and constellations will do the job and that the industry will welcome them. We are holding a workshop in December this year. Very shortly after that, the UKSA will plan the implementation of the policy framework around that. That work will obviously be relevant to the Bill as, when it comes into force, it will regulate the operation of all the satellites in orbit.
Amendment 18 seeks to make it a requirement that a report is laid before Parliament on any consultations, and to include within that report an indication of the regulations proposed. We still believe that the amendment is not necessary. Laying a report before Parliament would be a duplication. It is our intention, in line with the Government’s consultation principles document, to issue a government response to the formal consultations to take place in relation to this Bill. This will, of course, be accessible to everyone.
We expect that the approach to the insurance and licensing of nano satellites under this Bill will mostly be set out within the guidelines and not within regulations, as is the case under the Outer Space Act. This is to enable the development of the policy in line with changing circumstances. I would like to take a moment to explain how we envisage those regulations and guidance working. In Clause 37, the Bill provides the power to make regulations setting out that insurance may be required to cover certain risks and liabilities. The regulations can also set out what the insurance should cover, what may or may not be excluded from the cover and the amounts of cover required. Licences for spaceflight activities are bespoke in nature. Requiring a fixed amount of insurance for the operation of a satellite in orbit within regulations may remove the flexibility necessary to increase or reduce the insurance required, depending on the risks of each mission. It is therefore envisaged that the regulations may set out the methodology for calculating the amounts of insurance without containing specific figures. The regulations will set out those situations where insurance is required, what type of insurance is required and what should be covered within the policy.
Clause 12 and Schedule 1 allow the regulator to include a condition within each licence that sets out the minimum amount of insurance that is required for that licensed activity. We intend to include such conditions in licences for the operation of small satellites. The published guidance will set out the amount of insurance required in line with the regulations. Such guidance could include the insurance requirements for small satellites under the traffic light regime if the policy intention is to treat those in a certain way.
As I set out during the first day in Committee, the purpose of the guidance is to aid policy implementation by supplementing the legal framework. The main benefit of the guidance is the flexibility to amend quickly and take into account changing events. These are areas where guidance may need to be amended regularly and in a timely manner. In the meantime, the UKSA will continue to engage with industry and interested stakeholders. We are confident that we will publish the regulations in due course. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 18.
Lord Fox
I thank the noble Baroness for her letter on the subject of traffic lights, which I was pleased to receive. On a point of clarity, does the UK Space Agency, the Health and Safety Executive or some other body classify the risk of the launch? Who decides whether it is red, green or amber?
Baroness Sugg
It will be the regulator of the launch, dependent on whether it is suborbital or orbital, therefore either the CAA or the UKSA. However, they will use the same framework.
Lord Fox
We have exhausted this debate to a great degree. I still feel a little nervous that people are being asked to commit to a future industry when they are not sure how their satellites will fit into the Government’s regime and what the cost level of that will be. Therefore, there needs to be more clarity—if not in the Bill then issued in the guidelines—so that operators can be assured that they have an industry that they can afford to support. With that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sugg
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to land powers, a subject which attracted much debate in Committee. I have reflected on the concerns raised by the Committee, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Rosser, the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Ford, and my noble friend Lord Deben for their close scrutiny of these powers. I will set out the amendments that we have tabled in response to their contributions.
The Government want to make it clear that the Bill will not give compulsory purchase powers to operators. We have sought to establish a proportionate set of land powers that are intended to be used only where appropriate. For this reason we have tabled Amendment 19, which replaces the word “expedient” with “appropriate” in Clause 38, as the former term was much criticised in Committee. This is intended to clarify the limited circumstances in which a Clause 38 order could be made. There is precedent for the use of the word “appropriate” in relation to the exercise of powers under other legislation. A few examples are the Airports Act 1986, the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I hope this amendment reassures noble Lords that the Government are serious about developing a balanced land powers regime that does not disproportionately impact landowners.
On Clause 40, noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and my noble friend Lord Deben—raised concerns in Committee about the lack of clarity regarding the temporary nature of the restriction on the use of land by orders under this clause in the current draft of the Bill. It is our intention that orders made under Clause 40 should be in force for only the shortest amount of time possible, and should be used only where no alternative arrangement can be negotiated with the rights holders and other interested parties.
Amendment 20 would remove Clause 40 and replace it with text that more clearly sets out the temporary restriction of use by such orders. This amendment, which is similar to the amendment to Clause 38, seeks to revise the language of the clause to reassure noble Lords that such orders will be made only where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so. Further, subsection (1) of the proposed new clause explicitly sets out that orders would only temporarily restrict or prohibit the use of land or water for launch or landing.
We have also gone further. Orders made under this revised clause must specify the launch or landing that is proposed to be carried out and the period or periods for which the restriction or prohibition will apply. Orders must specify the relevant spaceport used and specify the area of land or water subject to the restriction or prohibition. This means that those affected will have greater clarity on the impact of the orders. They are able to challenge these restrictions using the objection process in Schedule 6, or can apply to quash orders under the process outlined in Schedule 7.
To reflect the temporary nature of restrictions or prohibitions under Clause 40 orders, we have consequentially tabled Amendments 23, 24 and 25 to Clause 44, which is headed “Registration of orders”. Temporary land orders made under Clause 40 would not be land charges and would not require registration in the land register in England and Wales or the equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
We have also tabled Amendments 26, 27 and 28 to Clause 48, which is headed “Amendment and revocation of orders”. The provision on orders under Clause 38, which is about powers to obtain rights over land, and paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 9, which relate to statutory undertakers, remain the same as before. The amendments to this clause allow for amending orders made under Clause 40(1) to shorten or remove a specified period of restriction or prohibition on the use of land or water. An amending order made under proposed new Clause 48(2)(a), or an order revoking this order, becomes operative immediately after it is made and the Secretary of State must notify relevant persons about the order.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I am grateful for the detailed exposition from the Minister this afternoon, which has clarified a number of things. Amendment 21, in my name and that of my noble friend, would require the consent of the relevant Minister in the Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland Governments before a land power could be created under Clauses 38 or 40. The Government have, on other issues, made many welcome concessions in relation to these sections. I am very grateful for the detailed letter from the Minister, which set out the Government’s response to questions I raised in Committee. I was reassured by the fact that the Government are looking at existing practice in the USA and New Zealand.
In our last debate, I asked what the Government meant by a “small area of land” and by the “vicinity” of the space launch site. It appears that in the US, regulations give the power to temporarily restrict access over a 2.2 kilometre radius from the launch point. In New Zealand, temporary restrictions on road use exist for six hours prior to a launch. Similar restrictions apply over areas of sea. On a densely populated island such as ours, such restrictions have a greater impact than in an area as extensive as the USA. We refer to potential spaceport sites as being in remote locations, but our definition of remote is certainly not that which would apply in the USA. Therefore, we are pleased indeed to see the increased precision provided by the Government’s amendments—for example, Amendment 20.
However, in our view, Amendment 21 deals with one important aspect that the Government’s amendments have not tackled. We have been told several times—indeed the Minister has repeated it just now—that the Welsh and Scottish Governments are supportive of the Bill. But that is rather different from their being content with the lack of specific reference to the need for the UK Government to gain the consent of Welsh and Scottish Ministers, or Northern Ireland Ministers when they exist. Support from the Welsh and Scottish Governments for the principle of the Bill does not mean their slavish support, for ever and a day, to its detailed outcomes.
In her response to me last time, the Minister referred to the example of the amendments made to the Equality Act 2010 as a result of the Bus Services Act. The Minister said that the Government thought it was appropriate to include reference to Welsh and Scottish Ministers in that Act, but,
“not strictly necessary, because the new regulation-making power was at the intersection of devolved and reserved matters”.—[Official Report, 23/10/17; col. 783.]
To take that forward, surely that argument applies equally here, where we have a Bill that refers to planning powers which are devolved and to a licensing process which is reserved.
I refer briefly again to the concerns of the House of Lords Constitution Committee on this issue. I gently suggest to the Minister, who has been gracious enough so far to deal with a number of concerns that have been raised in debate, that it might be tactful or sensitive to include reference to it here. A little good will at this stage might stave off problems in the other place and I urge her to look at this issue again.
Lord Deben
I am sure the House will accept that the Minister wishes to be less precise than the noble Baroness would like her to be, although her spirit suggests that she might move a little towards what is proposed here.
I wish to say two things. I welcome these amendments. They show the care that we all have to take at the extension of ministerial power. Even the small difference between expediency and appropriateness is a big gulf when it comes to attitudes. Expediency is a subjective statement whereas appropriateness can properly be tested in an objective way. I welcome the changes that have taken place.
In the course of the debate it was suggested that other legislation was the same as this. I have looked at the other legislation—I am boring like that—and, having been a Minister, I know that people occasionally put before one a phrase which is perhaps ill advised. The other legislation is not the same—it is rather different. One of the things your Lordships’ House is here to do is to deal with tiny differences which, when they get on to the statute book, become serious. As I take more and more time to deal with questions of climate change and the like, I find that there are institutional barriers to things that are obviously sensible to do because, at some time at some place, no one looked at the wording properly to ensure it did not create circumstances which made decisions more difficult.
As I said earlier, my thanks for the amendments will be accompanied by a warning that it is important to use this House in the way in which it has properly been used on this Bill. My noble friend may feel that a little more in the direction of the devolved Governments would be helpful. Certainly I would like to know more about their willingness to support the legislation as it is. That is the centrepiece of this disagreement and, as we have so few disagreements now, it would be nice to get rid of this one.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to reflect briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has said about the processing of this Bill. We will have a remarkably short Report stage, having had a good deal longer in Committee, because the Minister—I would say at our insistence but it would be unfair to suggest there was any resistance—has been willing to provide a great deal of time in private to work through the Bill in detail. There have been many concessions, which have been moved today and will form part of the Bill. This is an example of what an Opposition do best. The government concessions on land use and so forth add up to as good a deal as we think we are going to get, and the sensible thing for a good Administration to do is to take it. If we go any further we will end up dividing the House. We might or might not win, it then becomes a hostile environment, and things may get worse as a result. Therefore part of the process, unglamorous as it is, is to bank what you can.
I do not want to underestimate this because the Government have gone a long way in their concessions, but I will not recite them. I am pleased that the Minister has brought out the power in Clause 43; if she had done so in Committee I might not have made such a vigorous attack. That is because with our limited resources—I cannot think of a better way of putting it—we did not quite get to Clause 43. Certainly the compensation that Clause 43 refers to in Schedule 8 rounds off the land issues, so they are now as well rounded as they reasonably can be.
I share the view about Amendment 21, which I hope will not be pressed, but it would be good if the Minister could say a little more about it. I hope that the issue of reference to the devolved Administrations, which in successive Bills over the next several months we will be facing, is made a bit clearer. We must look at how it goes into future legislation. With that, I thank the Minister and all who have been involved not so much in this debate but in the wider debates both within and outside the Chamber for coming to what is a pretty good and rounded deal on the land issue.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I am pleased that noble Lords have welcomed the amendments tabled on land powers. As a relative newcomer to your Lordships’ House and certainly to this ministerial position, it has been a pleasure to take on board the sensible suggestions which have been made and to include them in the Bill. I am afraid that I am not going to be able to satisfy the noble Baroness today on including the devolved Administrations in the Bill, but I would like to take the opportunity to spell out a bit more of our engagement with them.
We began the engagement process in early 2014 when we first met the Welsh and Scottish Governments to discuss our ambitions to promote the UK space industry. We have been engaged with them on an official level ever since to ensure that they are content with all the provisions of the Bill. Specifically on land powers, we have agreed an approach which they have confirmed they are happy with. Before the introduction of the Bill, we discussed the land provisions with the Scottish Government, the lands tribunals for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Registers of Scotland, and have since consulted the Scottish Civil Justice Council on the practical implications of orders under Clauses 38 and 40. They have all confirmed that they are content with the implications for their processes.
Orders made on Welsh land would be subject to the same registration process as those in England, and any tribunals that were to be involved would be the same ones as for England. The Minister of State for Transport, John Hayes, spoke last week to the Scottish Government Minister for Transport to update him on the progress of the Bill and the proposed amendments. In addition, my officials continue to engage the devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as the Bill makes its way through the parliamentary process. This includes sharing information on the proposed amendments tabled last week, with which the devolved Administrations have expressed that they are content. An opportunity for the devolved Administrations to raise any concerns about a specific order is, as I said earlier, provided in Schedule 6.
We expect that spaceport or launch operators or range control service providers will have already worked closely with local landowners and local authorities as they develop their plans for sites and launches. We also expect that, rather than orders under Clauses 38 and 40 being necessary, operators will negotiate with landowners for access to land.
I hope that this greater detail, combined with the amendments tabled by the Government to Clauses 38, 40 and 42, give reassurance to noble Lords. I hope also that the amendments demonstrate that the Government recognise the importance of land and ownership rights, as well as the importance of protecting the public during periods of spaceflight activities.
In response to the invaluable scrutiny of this House, we have sought to fine-tune our proposals to prevent unnecessary restrictions on land users and landowners. In addition, we have clarified the availability of a robust challenge process which provides those who wish to challenge with very similar grounds and remedies to those available through judicial review. The Bill also includes provision for just compensation where appropriate. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendment 21.
Baroness Sugg
“Power to restrict use of land temporarily(1) The Secretary of State may by order temporarily restrict or prohibit the use of a specified area of land or water as a place for the arrival and departure of aircraft or spacecraft if satisfied that it is appropriate to do so—(a) to secure that a specified launch or landing may be safely carried out at a specified spaceport, or(b) to prevent a specified launch or landing at a specified spaceport from endangering persons or property.(2) An order under subsection (1) may not restrict or prohibit the use of an area of tidal waters that is beyond those of the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom.(3) An order under subsection (1) must specify the period, or periods, during which the use of the specified area of land or water is restricted or prohibited.(4) Schedule 6 makes further provision in relation to orders under subsection (1).In that Schedule—(a) Part 1 applies to orders under this section that do not prohibit or restrict the use of water (“land orders”); (b) Part 2 applies to orders under this section that are not land orders.(5) It is an offence to contravene a provision of an order under subsection (1).(6) An offence under subsection (5) committed on tidal waters outside the ordinary jurisdiction of a court of summary jurisdiction may be tried and punished by such a court as if it had been committed in the nearest part of the United Kingdom that is within the jurisdiction of such a court.(7) Subsection (6), as it applies in relation to Scotland, does not confer jurisdiction on any court of summary jurisdiction other than the sheriff court.(8) Proceedings for an offence under subsection (5) may be instituted—(a) in England and Wales, only by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions;(b) in Northern Ireland, only by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.(9) In this section—“launch or landing” means a launch or landing of a spacecraft or carrier aircraft;“specified” means specified in an order under subsection (1).”
Baroness Sugg
“Challenges to and commencement of orders(1) A proposal to make an order under section 38 or 40 may be challenged under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 but may not otherwise be challenged in any legal proceedings.(2) An order under section 38 or 40 may be challenged under Schedule 7 but may not otherwise be challenged in any legal proceedings.(3) Subject to Schedule 7 and section 48(5), an order under section 38 or 40 becomes operative at the end of the period of six weeks beginning with the day on which the notice that the order has been made is published under paragraph 6(1)(a) or 8(1)(a) (as the case may be) of Schedule 6 .”
Baroness Sugg
Baroness Sugg
“(2) The power to make an order that is conferred by section 40(1) includes a power—(a) to amend the order to shorten, or remove, a period specified as required by subsection (3) of that section;(b) otherwise to amend the order;(c) to revoke the order.(3) Immediately after making an order under the power specified in subsection (2)(a) or (c) the Secretary of State must serve on the relevant persons—(a) a copy of the order, and(b) a notice explaining the effect of the order and stating when it became operative.(4) The relevant persons are—(a) where the original order is a land order—(i) every owner, lessee and occupier of any of the land;(ii) every local authority within whose area any of the land is situated;(b) where the original order is not a land order—(i) any person who the Secretary of State thinks is particularly well able to bring the new order to the attention of those likely to be affected by it;(ii) every person who was served with a copy of a notice, under paragraph 8(1)(b) of Schedule 6, in respect of the original order.(5) An order made under the power specified in subsection (2)(a) or (c) becomes operative immediately after it is made.(6) The power specified in subsection (2)(b) is exercisable in the same manner and subject to the same conditions or limitations as the power to make the original order.”
Baroness Sugg
Baroness Sugg
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, in Committee last month, a number of noble Lords urged my noble friend Lord Callanan to reconsider the Henry VIII powers contained in Clause 66. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, highlighted the powerful arguments made by several speakers on this issue and recommended that the Government give thought to that between Committee and Report. I am pleased to say that we have followed his advice and have considered the arguments made by noble Lords. As a result, I have tabled these amendments, which will remove the Henry VIII powers from the Bill. I hope noble Lords will appreciate the considerable ground the Government have given. We have not taken this decision lightly; we recognise that there may be situations in the future that leave some legal uncertainty. However, we will continue to examine related legislation and address any omissions as necessary.
Amendments 34, 36 and 37 ensure that the power to make consequential amendments in Clause 67 is now limited to changes to secondary legislation made under the negative resolution procedure. Turning to Amendment 33A, we had an interesting debate on this same issue in Committee. I take it that my arguments then failed to convince noble Lords of the necessity of the subsection. However, the Government remain convinced that the subsection is needed to ensure that all aspects of the Bill can be fully implemented effectively.
As noble Lords are aware, the Bill provides powers to make regulations for specific purposes such as safety and security. However, there remains the possibility that due to the complex and evolving nature of spaceflight technology, we may need to supplement such regulations with regulations on other aspects of spaceflight and associated activities. The power in Clause 67(1) would only be used in such cases. I hope noble Lords are reassured by my explanation and feel able not to press the amendment. I beg to move Amendment 31.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is in his place. I would like to say that he was sorely missed this afternoon, but unfortunately I cannot—we did not miss him at all. I can see that his popping in occasionally in the afternoon to this House of concord and agreement must be a pleasure, away from the hell of the Brexit department. It is good to see him. I do not know whether it was my eloquence or the fact that a former Lord Chief Justice—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—applied his powerful arguments, but we welcome the Government’s concession.
I will not go into a great deal of detail on Amendment 33A. I will read out the section we want to delete:
“Regulations may make provision generally for carrying this Act into effect and for achieving the purpose set out in section 1(1)”.
Subsection 1 is equally catch-all. It states:
“This Act has effect for the purpose of regulating—(a) space activities, (b) sub-orbital activities, and (c) associated activities, carried out in the United Kingdom”.
That is far too wide-reaching.
I make one last plea to the Minister: perhaps we could have further talks involving the opposition—the Official Opposition as well, who put their names to this—to see whether we can get some different wording. We have done a lot of good work on this, but the wording is far too wide. I give her this Gypsy’s warning: if we send the Bill down to the other place with this subsection, it will cause just the same trouble. Parliament has to be very jealous of its privileges during the passage of Bills such as this. This is a bridge too far for anyone who cares about the need to keep powers within these two Houses. I am not going to press the amendment—it would be jarring to the spirit of the whole debate to have a Division at this stage—but if the Minister would agree to meet us and have one more go before Third Reading, that would be helpful.
Lord Rosser
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that widespread concern was expressed in Committee about Henry VIII powers in the Bill and the power they would give the Government to bypass Parliament when amending or repealing primary legislation. I too am grateful that the Government have changed their position. I suspect they were concerned that they would lose a vote on this in this House, and were probably far from sure they could put the Henry VIII clause back in the Bill when it got to the Commons. They would also have had the consideration that, at their behest, the Bill started in the Lords rather than the Commons, which is not the normal procedure for Bills containing potentially controversial clauses, as this one did until the government amendment was tabled. Henry VIII may be turning in his grave at these government amendments, but we welcome them.
On Amendment 33A, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I hoped the Government would be able to give some rather more convincing reasons than they gave in Committee for this catch-all regulation-making power being in the Bill. I am afraid the obvious conclusion is that once again, there is no movement because the Government have brought forward this skeletal Bill for their own party management reasons, one year before discussions on the regulations and nearly two years before those key regulations are placed before Parliament. As a result, frankly, the Government do not know what regulations will be needed. Even though this is a difficulty of their own making, they clearly think it quite acceptable to expect Parliament to agree to the wide-ranging regulation-making power Amendment 33A seeks to delete.
I share the view that it would help if this issue could be further discussed before the Bill leaves this House, which means before Third Reading. I also share the view that the subsection that Amendment 33A would delete will, if it remains in the Bill, be the subject of much discussion when it gets to the Commons. If the Government will not agree to delete it, it would be a lot better if it could be amended in some way. I hope they will think again on this issue.
Baroness Sugg
I will attempt again to explain our opposition to the amendment. It would result in primary legislation being needed for such cases, including, for example, to make provisions for any developments in technology. This could lead to delayed launches from the UK and harm a burgeoning industry, so we are keen to maintain flexibility.
It is worth noting that the power’s scope is limited. Only regulations that relate to the regulation of spaceflight activities and associated activities can be made, as set out in Clause 1(1). I provided assurances in Committee on the limited scope of these associated activities. If regulations were to go wide of those and cover other areas, the Secretary of State would have exceeded his or her delegated authority and the decision would be subject to judicial review.
The Government have reflected on the concerns expressed about the powers contained in the Bill. We have gone a significant way towards addressing them by removing the Henry VIII power. The removal of Clause 67(1) would adversely impact on the Government’s ability to ensure that legislation relating to spaceflight was kept up to date. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that this Bill was brought forward to supply certainty to the industry, but I understand that concerns remain about the definition of “associated activities” and would be happy to meet noble Lords ahead of Third Reading. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendment.
Baroness Sugg
“(4) Regulations under this section may not amend or repeal primary legislation.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
I am happy not to move the amendment for the moment. I would like to study carefully what the Minister has said, but I reserve the point that we may want to bring back the amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Sugg
Baroness Sugg
“(6A) The Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation before making regulations to which subsection (6) applies. Where the Secretary of State lays before Parliament a draft of an instrument containing such regulations, it must be accompanied by a report by the Secretary of State about the consultation.(6B) The duties imposed by subsection (6A) do not apply where the regulations amend other regulations and, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, they do not make any substantial change.”
Baroness Sugg
Noble Lords will recall the wide-ranging debate on parliamentary oversight of secondary legislation that took place in Committee. The Government have reflected on the concerns expressed by noble Lords. As a result, this amendment will impose a statutory duty to carry out a public consultation before any regulations are made under the affirmative resolution procedure.
I hope that the amendment alleviates noble Lords’ concerns and reassures them of the Government’s intention to undertake full and wide-ranging consultation. This will also include a report by the Secretary of State on the consultation. As my noble friend Lord Callanan said in Committee, the Government’s intention is to carry out a public consultation that will invite a response from all interested parties, including noble Lords and trade unions.
Any subsequent regulations that materially changed the substance of the original instruments would also be subject to consultation. All noble Lords who have spoken on the subject will be notified of any public consultation. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
In Committee, we expressed our concerns about the extensive use of secondary legislation to bring in provisions under this Bill due to the Government’s insistence on taking a skeletal Bill through Parliament literally years before the all-important regulations appear.
We also expressed our concern, as did the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, about the Government’s intention, in respect of many regulations, that the affirmative procedure be used only for the first regulations and not for subsequent regulations under the same relevant section of the Bill, which would instead be covered by the negative procedure.
The Government said in Committee that the development of the first sets of regulations would be subject to a stakeholder engagement process over the coming months and that they would then issue a full and wide-ranging consultation on each initial draft statutory instrument prior to their being laid. They also said that if there were any material change to the original instruments, there would be further consultation.
Government Amendment 35 seeks to put some of those undertakings in the Bill. While it does not address the concern about the negative procedure being used for subsequent regulations after the affirmative procedure for the first regulations, it provides a statutory requirement for a public consultation before regulations are made to which Clause 67(6) applies and for a report to be made by the Secretary of State about the consultation when a draft of such regulations is laid before Parliament. To that extent, and it is not a minimal extent, the government amendment represents progress and we welcome it.
Lord McNally
Amendment 35 shows that some fertile minds have been at work since these issues were raised. Therefore, while I welcome the amendment, I suggest that the Minister puts those same fertile minds to work on Amendment 33A; then we might have an equally happy outcome at Third Reading.
Baroness Sugg
Baroness Sugg
(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation (within the meaning given in the Interpretation Act 1978);(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;(c) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament;(d) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under,”
Baroness Sugg
“( ) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the provisions of this Act extend, with any modifications specified in the Order, to—(a) any of the Channel Islands;(b) the Isle of Man;(c) any British overseas territory.”
Space Industry Bill [HL]
Tuesday 28th November 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 73(a) Amendment for Third Reading (PDF, 49KB) - (27 Nov 2017)
Lord McNally
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is the result of unfinished business at the end of Report. Basically, there has been an argument throughout this Bill, and there will be in other Bills that come before us, about the worrying nature of the use of secondary legislation that is vaguely promised and vaguely described in primary legislation. In this respect, Clause 67(1), which is vaguely written, refers back to Clause 1(1) which again makes vague commitments. The amendment merely suggests that there should be crisper and more tightly drawn references which avoid blank cheques and abuse of secondary legislation.
I do not intend to press this to a vote this afternoon, but to leave it as a bit of business still to be considered. The other place will need to look at it, because it should be as worrying to them as it is to this House.
I put on record my appreciation for the removal from the Bill of the Henry VIII clause, and I hope that will be a guide for other Bills that are coming before us. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is not in his place, who has made it quite clear that Henry VIII clauses were to be avoided, and that this example of putting in Henry VIII clauses and vague “blank cheque” secondary legislation was a problem that needed to be addressed. That is not to deny the fact that we also need to be able to future-proof Bills as best we can, particularly a Bill such as this. It is a matter of getting the balance right between future-proofing and ring-fencing them in terms of the powers that we write in.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, emphasised in his lecture at King’s College in 2016:
“This is not an attack on delegated legislation”.
However, in that lecture he quoted one of his distinguished predecessors as Lord Chief Justice—Lord Hewart—who, in 1929, warned against,
“the increase of bureaucratic, departmental authority over the citizen”.
The moving of power from Parliament to the Executive is one of the ironies of the Brexit process.
We believe that if we do not heed the warnings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others, we face a constitutional car crash. At the very least, future-proofing should be tightly drawn. The super-affirmative process should be used where necessary, as should sunset clauses. I believe that we need to look at the case for making certain types of secondary legislation amendable by both Houses. That is the thinking behind this amendment—a billet-doux to send down the Corridor to the other place. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I assume that when she comes to respond the Minister will talk about the wording of the amendment and, if she is not going to accept it on behalf of the Government, will indicate why it is not acceptable. Therefore, my brief comments and questions are based on the assumption that she will talk about the wording of the amendment and what it would mean if it were included in the Bill, because obviously I share the concerns that have been expressed. I hope that if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment on behalf of the Government, she will at least indicate a willingness to reflect further on this matter prior to its being considered in the House of Commons.
In her response, perhaps the Minister could say what the Government envisage they might want to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) as it stands that they consider they would not be able to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) if it were amended in line with this amendment. Or, to put it the other way round, what do the Government consider they would not be able to do that they might want to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) amended in line with this amendment that they would be able to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) as it stands?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, we debated this issue extensively in Committee and on Report, and I regret that I have been unable to convince noble Lords of the necessity of this provision as drafted.
The wording of the clause—which is why we are keen to include it rather than the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McNally—is consistent with that contained in Section 60(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the latter being a power to do anything,
“generally for regulating air navigation”.
A similar power arises under Section 11(1) of the Outer Space Act 1986 to enable the making of regulations generally for carrying that Act into effect. That is why we put forward the wording that we did in the Bill.
As noble Lords are well aware, there are a number of other regulation-making powers in the Bill, notably around security and safety. However, we need to ensure that we can regulate those wider matters relating to spaceflight and associated activities carried out in the UK that are not covered by the other powers. For example, this may include implementation of our international obligations relating to spaceflight arising from bilateral or multilateral treaties. We know from our experience in other sectors, such as aviation, that despite our best efforts there needs to be the flexibility to deal with any unexpected circumstances. The Government therefore remain convinced that this provision, as currently drafted, is needed to ensure that all aspects of the Bill can be fully implemented effectively.
Lord McNally
My Lords, as I indicated, what we said, the probing of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the Minister’s reply are in Hansard and will be of use in the other place when they make their judgment about whether the Bill is drafted tightly enough in these matters. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank all those involved for their interest in, engagement with and scrutiny of the Bill over the past few months. The UK space industry is a British success story—a story of invention, innovation and global ambition. The Bill will take us further, enabling new satellite launch services and low-gravity spaceflight from UK spaceports, and supporting our industrial strategy to deliver a stronger economy that works for everyone.
I thank my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Callanan, who took the Bill through its early stages, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord McNally, and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who provided rigorous scrutiny throughout this process. I am grateful for the contributions of my noble friend Lord Moynihan; I, for one, will miss the strong advocacy for a certain location in Scotland. Finally, I thank policy officials and lawyers from the UK Space Agency, the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for their work on the Bill.
It has been a privilege to debate the Bill with noble Lords, whose knowledge and expertise I have found incredibly helpful. We have taken on many of the recommendations of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee, and I thank them for their work. The constructive engagement, conversations and debates we have had together have led to significant improvements to the Bill. This is an example of this House at its best, where proper scrutiny and challenge can—put simply—lead to a better Bill. Today, therefore, we stand one step closer to a new commercial space age, and I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the Minister and the Bill team for their willingness to consider the points we have raised about the Bill during its passage through this House. A number of meetings have been held, which we appreciated, and we welcome the changes the Government have been prepared to see made to the Bill as a result.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe for—I was going to say “his advice and support” but the reality is that it has been infinitely more than that. I also thank Grace Wright in our office for all the hard and vitally important work that she has done for us on the Bill.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in thanking both the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. Although I teased him at the time that he was not missed, it is clear that there was a smooth and orderly passing of the ball to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who has carried out her role with great skill and charm and has made herself and officials available, for which we are grateful. Our Bill team consisted of Sarah Pughe, who has been a great help to me, and my noble friends Lady Randerson and Lord Fox. I have enjoyed working with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who brings his eye for detail to these matters, and with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who brought his experiences as an ex-pilot. I will remember two contributions by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. He reminded us that a rocket is a controlled explosion, which puts some of the health and safety aspects into perspective. He also said that the first civil aviation Act in 1920 completely underestimated the explosion of air travel that was about to come. Therefore, those who write off this Bill as a bit of futurology may be surprised at how soon some of this comes to pass.
I take pride that the problem of space rubbish has been put firmly in the Bill. It is now part of the Liberal Democrat lexicon, along with clean pavements and other matters. It was a delight to have contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who, as a Minister, made such a contribution to giving the space industry of which we are so proud its impetus. We all look forward to the opening of the Moynihan International Spaceport in Scotland, which I am sure will be a festive occasion.
One has to say and lead the worry that Brexit casts a long shadow over this industry. It is important that, if Brexit were to go ahead, the industry be well protected to make progress.
Again I thank the Minister and her team for making this Bill a good example of the House of Lords at work.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I add my gratitude and appreciation to the ministerial team, both present and past, who have worked so diligently on this Bill. It was very helpful that the Bill was published in an early form for consultation in both Houses, which has led to a series of improvements. My noble friend the Minister has listened carefully, particularly on the question of secondary legislation, to ensure that as much of that as possible was addressed during the passage of the Bill. Indeed, it will continue to be so in another place.
This is an important Bill which provides the regulatory and legal framework now which will take the industry forward. However, none of us should be under any illusion—while we can provide the regulatory and legal framework—that we do not need to work closely with the private sector to make sure that this is a commercial success. Ultimately, these spaceports will require close co-operation between government and the private sector.
My noble friend has mentioned that I have been an advocate in part for a certain location in Scotland, which I think was her phrase. The House should be under no illusion whatever that that location is Prestwick Airport. It is head and shoulders the best airport to be licensed for spacecraft activities at the earliest possible stage in this country. This has been self-evident throughout our deliberations. All noble Lords will, of course, be welcome to the opening of Prestwick when it is finally licensed as the first spaceport in the United Kingdom.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether I might be permitted a brief intervention. I do so with some diffidence and an apology to your Lordships for not being present on Second Reading, for diary reasons, although I have sat in on some of the subsequent parts of the Bill.
I too have an interest to declare. Like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I live quite close to Prestwick Airport—almost as close as he does, but on the other side of the runway. However, I am glad to say that I am on the same side of the argument as him. I strongly endorse all that he said with such clarity, efficiency and thoroughness throughout all the stages of the Bill. Regarding the suitability of Prestwick Airport—I know that we are talking about the Bill, not just Prestwick Airport; I had better say first that it was a good Bill and is now a better Bill as a result of the consideration it has had—I cannot help but support its case. It is a fine, well-established airport of long standing. It was a base for the stratocruisers that left London, on their way to New York; they stopped there to refuel, both outwards and inwards. From there, it moved on to another fine record, with the location of Scottish Aviation. It now has 2,300 aerospace jobs nearby. It is close to the sea and open at all hours. Really, it is underused, but it has a basic infrastructure that could receive all the elaborate infrastructure needed for a space base.
There is a slightly broader point that is briefly worth making. The fact remains that the Scottish economy is trailing that of the rest of the United Kingdom, for reasons that I will not indulge in, for political reasons. In Scotland, the Ayrshire economy is also suffering to a considerable degree. It is one of the most socially deprived areas in Scotland, with one in five people living in a deprived area—rather more than in the rest of Scotland. Unemployment is at nearly 8% in Ayrshire, compared to 5% in the rest of Scotland. There is a strong case for the triggering of a huge potential economic payback from the circumstances in which the spaceport would be located.
The Government made a commitment in their manifesto at the last election to invest in Scotland. This is an opportunity to do so.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lord, this is not a Third Reading speech. You are meant to just quickly say thank you and then we will move on.
Lord Lang of Monkton
I will bring my speech to an immediate conclusion. These are important, but peripheral, points. The essential point is that the Bill is a fine one and that Prestwick is an ideal location. I wish the Bill all speed for the rest of its passage.
Space Industry Bill [Lords]
Monday 15th January 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 73(a) Amendment for Third Reading (PDF, 49KB) - (27 Nov 2017)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Very few people realise just how important the space industry is to our daily lives. Satellites, in particular, provide many critical services that we all take for granted. Navigation satellites provide the precision timing needed to enable global financial transactions. Weather satellites enable farmers and the emergency services to plan how best to protect people, property and produce from extreme weather, and provide unique insights into our changing climate. Communication and imaging satellites let us monitor disasters and threats to our national interests, and allow us to watch and react to live news events unfolding anywhere on earth.
Satellites, a specialty of the British space industry, play a crucial role in our economy, supporting more than £250 billion of our GDP. In the future, tens of thousands of new, smaller satellites are planned, creating a global launch opportunity worth £10 billion over the next 10 years. This is an opportunity that the UK is well placed to pursue. Our long coastline, aviation heritage, engineering capability, thriving space sector and business-friendly environment all make the UK attractive for new commercial launch services. We already license space activities that are carried out by UK companies from other countries, but we could carry out space activities from our own shores. We have already announced a £50 million programme to kick-start markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital flight from UK spaceports as part of our industrial strategy, and we have received 26 separate proposals for grant funding.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I am a small shareholder in ManSat and president of the parliamentary space committee. The Minister said that satellite technology is one of this country’s specialities, but is he as concerned as I am by what I read in the newspapers about British companies being frozen out of bidding under the Galileo project owing to Brexit?
Joseph Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. That is a subject of some concern and one that I had occasion to raise on numerous occasions with Commissioner Bieńkowska in my previous role as Science Minister. We want to ensure that our space sector continues to be able to compete on a level playing field, and, as long as we are full members of the European Union, we have every expectation that businesses should to be able to bid and win contracts under programmes such as Galileo and Copernicus.
Through this Bill, we seek to be a global exemplar of good regulation by balancing the need for flexibility and foresight with an absolute commitment to public safety. As such, the Bill provides a framework for the development of more detailed rules in secondary legislation, supplemented by guidance and supported by a licensing regime. The Bill was developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) by drawing on expertise from across Government, including the Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. I also express my thanks to the wide-ranging scrutiny carried out by noble Lords in the other place, which was done with enthusiasm as all parties acknowledged the importance of the Bill and wanted to make it a success. The Bill that is being considered by this House is now better as a result of their hard work. I hope that that collaborative attitude will govern the passage of the Bill through this House. The collegiate approach to the development of this Bill, which my right hon. Friend spearheaded, will continue as we develop secondary legislation, consulting on key issues and providing confidence to the public and investors that the UK will develop safe, business-friendly regulation in the public interest.
The Space Industry Bill is necessarily broad in scope, but it benefits from the experience and best practice of international launch, as well as our own world-class aviation regulator, resulting in a safe, proportionate and comprehensive enabling framework in one piece of legislation. In turn, the activities defined in this Bill and its subsequent regulatory framework would benefit many in the UK. Entrepreneurs would benefit from new opportunities to build innovative commercial enterprises. Local economies would benefit from the creation of spaceport sites with related jobs. Our small satellite industry would have direct access to domestic launch capacity, reducing dependence on foreign launch services.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Certain regions in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be able to have specific projects, but Northern Ireland will not. Will there be job opportunities for those with the qualities and the talent, even if they reside outside where the opportunities for businesses to create projects are located?
Joseph Johnson
Indeed. I was in Belfast just a few weeks ago for one of the UK launch programme’s roadshow events, where we gathered together small and medium-sized businesses in Northern Ireland with expertise in space to showcase all the benefits that are to be gained from participating in the programme and taking part in the activities that the Bill will enable.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
If I am correct and the Bill will open the way for commercial spaceflights within the next 20 years, does the Minister realise that such flights will arrive many years quicker than Transport for the North’s proposals for improvements to transport in the north, including rail electrification to Hull?
Joseph Johnson
We want to move forward on many fronts, and the Bill will enable us to capture some of the significant opportunities that are out there for British businesses in the space sector.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Given the fast growth of the sector and the fact that its businesses create jobs three times faster than the average British company, does the Minister share my concern about the lack of interest in this Bill from the Labour party?
Joseph Johnson
The Bill has been developed collaboratively with the support and involvement of all parties, and I am grateful for the constructive approach taken by the Labour party. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, however, to say that there are tremendous opportunities for British companies in the space sector. We have a market share of about 6.5% at the moment, but the Government’s ambition is to increase that 10% by 2030, and the Bill will play an important role in enabling us to take advantage of the great opportunities.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Minister is being generous with his time. Having worked with him for the past two years on helping to develop this country’s space industry, I absolutely share his vision for how fantastic things can be for Great Britain. There are many technical details that can help us to achieve our target of 10% of the global space market, and one of those important details is the liability that space companies have on launches. We currently have unlimited liability, but were we to find a system whereby there could be limited liability on insuring spacecraft, that could bring a huge amount of space activity to this country.
Joseph Johnson
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point that was the subject of considerable discussion when the Bill was in the other place, and we will return to it in detail in Committee. For the time being, I can say that we recognise that launch from the UK is an important new activity, and, given the risks involved, further work needs to be carried out on the appropriateness of capping either liability to Government or to third parties in prescribed circumstances. State aid issues must also be considered in relation to any such cap that we might want to introduce. However, we plan to announce a call for evidence on all issues relating to insurance and liabilities early this year following the Bill’s Royal Assent.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does the Minister share my view that companies such as Reaction Engines, which is based in my constituency, hold the future for space vehicles that can be used over and over again?
Joseph Johnson
Indeed. Reaction Engines is a great example of the kind of British company that is well placed to take advantage of all the opportunities that the Bill will enable. We have been supporting Reaction Engines and its SABRE technology through Innovate UK and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and, from memory, I believe that it has received around £55 million over recent years. We want it to be a great success, and have every confidence that it will be.
British-based scientists will benefit through increased access to microgravity and investment in institutional capability in launch, spaceflight and related sciences, attracting world-class scientists to the UK. Young people seeking careers in science, technology, engineering and maths will gain new opportunities and greater inspiration from an expanding UK space sector. The UK as a whole will benefit from access to a strategic small-satellite launch capability, contributing to our understanding of the world, the provision of public and commercial services, the delivery of national security and new opportunities for investment and export.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Minister has just referred to the skills that will be supported by the Bill. Does he agree that it presents a real opportunity to inspire the next generation, so that those growing up across Oxfordshire can look to ensure that this country really excels in an area in which it already takes a lead?
Joseph Johnson
Absolutely. There is nothing like space to generate STEM inspiration, which we saw when Tim Peake became one of the first British astronauts —if not the first British astronaut—to visit the International Space Station last year. We have seen on many occasions the power that space has to capture the imaginations of young people, and we have every confidence that the development of a domestic launch capability will have comparable effects over time.
The UK as a whole will benefit from access to a strategic launch capability. Today, we stand at the dawn of a new commercial space age. We can once more reach for the stars, but not at vast public expense or in a way that is dependent on the good will of others elsewhere in the world. We can do so in the best spirit of British innovation and by enabling commercial markets for small-satellite launch and sub-orbital flight from UK spaceports. The sky will no longer be the limit for our talented scientists, engineers and entrepreneur, and with modern, safe and supportive legislation, we will attract the capability, infrastructure and investment we need to make that a reality. I commend the Bill to the House.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It must be a blessed relief for Government Front Benchers to move their attention away from their trials and tribulations here on planet Earth and to lift their eyes up to the heavens. Much of the country is doing likewise, aghast in sheer disbelief at the Government’s continued appalling judgment on our country’s transport system.
It is perhaps no surprise that the Secretary of State for Transport is not present for the Second Reading of this important Bill—perhaps he is explaining to the Prime Minister how he came to the view in July 2017 that Carillion was a safe bet and fit to be awarded the High Speed 2 contract, despite dire profit warnings. He is making a habit of not being at the Dispatch Box when his decisions make the news for all the wrong reasons.
Just as the Secretary of State has today delegated responsibility for the Space Industry Bill to the newly appointed Minister of State, the Government have produced a Bill that delegates more powers than it has clauses. That said, I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) for his open attitude to producing the best possible legislation, which is consistent with his attitude throughout. I commend him for that, and I trust that the same arrangement will continue with his successor so that we can produce the best possible Bill.
The UK’s space industry is an important and burgeoning part of our economy. It was valued at £13.7 billion in 2014-15, supporting almost 40,000 jobs. This Bill will establish a licensing regime for spaceports, spaceflights and satellite launches that is currently missing from the statute book and will put in place the regulatory framework to allow further expansion of the industry.
The UK Space Agency’s assessment, published in 2016, showed that the UK had a 6.5% share of the global space industry, and we hope the Bill will help to increase that share as the space industry grows globally in the coming years. Accordingly, Labour will be supporting the Bill as it continues its passage into law, although not without reservation about certain aspects, which I will spell out.
I put on record my party’s thanks to our Front-Bench colleagues in the other place for their valuable work on this Bill. They secured a number of important concessions from the Government, particularly the removal of the Henry VIII powers, which has much improved the Bill and for which we are grateful. However, we will still press Ministers on delegated powers and on the Bill’s impact on the environment, health and safety regulation and land powers.
During the Bill’s passage through the other place, the Government gave assurances that they would table amendments in this House on a duty to carry out full environmental impact assessments as part of the licensing process. We look forward to Ministers following up on that assurance in the Bill’s later stages.
Similarly, the Government gave an assurance in the other place that a specific regulator, either the Civil Aviation Authority or the UK Space Agency, will be a single point of accountability for health and safety on each individual mission. However, we will seek further details from Ministers on the relationship between the Health and Safety Executive and the CAA or the UK Space Agency, and on how best practices will be shared.
In relation to joined-up thinking on health and safety matters, will the Minister illuminate us on whether the Government have put any thought into how this Bill and the recently introduced Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill will cover legislative issues relating to the pointing of lasers at suborbital spacecraft and horizontal-launching spacecraft?
Moreover, can the Minister shed light on the Government’s thinking on clause 33(5), which addresses
“provision for an operator licence to specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability”
in the unlikely event of “injury or damage” being caused by licensed spaceflight activities? My recollection is that a figure of £20 million was suggested in my previous discussions with Ministers. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? If it is, I suggest the Government reconsider the limit.
We recognise this is a highly technical and highly skilled environment and that the chances of something happening will hopefully be extremely remote, but, if it were to happen, the consequences could be dire. In those circumstances, £20 million may not be anywhere near sufficient. Two catastrophic injury cases could take a large share of that sum. In the case of brain injury or other catastrophic injury, the costs incurred by long-term support, accommodation or care would be considerable. I ask the Minister to think about how we might work around that difficulty.
The Government conceded in the other place that the wording of the Bill needs to be tightened to clarify that any restrictions over land would be temporary and would need to be established individually for each specific mission. Further clarity is also required on the ability of those affected by such restrictions to appeal against the decisions. We want Ministers now to outline how the Government expect the powers to be used and to ensure that the Bill provides an adequate legislative framework should the UK’s space industry undergo significant growth in the future, as we all want to see.
Finally, returning to the point I outlined at the start, the Bill appears to have been introduced well before the Government have done sufficient work to allow Parliament to scrutinise the legislation—the Bill contains 100 delegated powers in 71 clauses. Despite the Government’s concession to remove the potential Henry VIII power from clause 66, clause 67 still has a catch-all regulation-making power that allows the Government to make general provision for regulating space activities and “associated activities”. We look to the Government to better define those associated activities.
Furthermore, the Government appear determined that significant statutory instruments arising from the Bill’s delegated powers will be affirmative when they are first made, with negative procedures following afterwards. As the Bill progresses, we will seek to persuade the Government that such statutory instruments should be consistently affirmative each and every time they are made.
We will be supporting the Bill on Second Reading, but unfortunately the Government have introduced a Bill that is inadequately detailed and imprecisely worded. We will seek to change that as the Bill progresses, but sadly the Government have been too busy making a mess of our public transport by hiring failing companies to build national infrastructure projects and by bailing out private companies when they fail to run our rail network.
It is time that this Government made decisions in the interest of the UK economy and hard-pressed taxpayers, instead of dishing out corporate welfare. It is time they started focusing on the day job.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is an honour and a pleasure to speak from the Back Benches for the first time not quite in a lifetime but in very many years. It is a particular pleasure to speak in a debate on a Bill that I helped to shape, as the Minister generously acknowledged. I am grateful both for his words and for the words of the shadow Secretary of State. It has been a pleasure to work on this subject, and indeed on transport more widely, with colleagues on both sides of the House.
Reflecting during this sojourn on the Back Benches, I thought that parliamentary and political life constantly gives the impression, perhaps the illusion, of permanence, but in practice it offers the reality of impermanence; all things we do here are ephemeral. Knowing that guides and shapes how we behave; nothing lasts long. However, it is vital that Governments do things that are long lasting, far sighted and strategic, and not simply piecemeal or reactive. Of course Governments must deal with the day-to-day events, the week-to-week affairs of the nation, but they must also set their sights on a more distant horizon, what Kennedy called a “new frontier” and what popular culture called “the final frontier”—of course no frontiers are entirely final for me, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, but none the less it is important that Governments do just that.
Governments in democratic polities struggle to do that, partly because of those daily and weekly imperatives; partly because no one wants to take responsibility for big decisions that might go wrong and so it is easier to deal with small things that can be corrected quickly; and partly because the five-year electoral cycle means that they get no credit for planning and thinking through things that might bear fruit 10 years or more later. Governments in democratic polities have a history of not doing those long-term things, so I am pleased to see that this Bill is an exception to that general thesis.
The Bill sets out a way forward for the space industry that is far sighted and strategic. It is vital that we should do so, but there is another challenge for Government in this respect: creating a legislative framework that is sufficient to allow and, indeed, encourage further investment, but not going so far as to attempt to predict an unpredictable future. This is a highly dynamic sector and the technology we are debating this evening will be unrecognisable by the time this Bill bears fruit those five or 10 years down the line, as it grows, alters and metamorphoses. Someone mentioned Reaction Engines earlier, and I was pleased and proud to go there as a Minister to see precisely what it is doing, and to witness and begin to understand—I say no more than that—the technological changes it envisages in propulsion. It is developing a whole new method of propulsion, which will change assumptions about the speed with which we travel and therefore open up all kinds of new chances to do so.
The speed and pace of technological change requires Governments to know when to be modest, as well as when to be bold. This Bill attempts to square that circle; to walk that tightrope, and it does so reasonably well. I acknowledge what the shadow Secretary of State said: when we do that, we risk—perhaps that is too strong and I should say open the possibility of—a great deal of secondary legislation. This Bill is, in essence, a framework, which will require further measures to bring it to life as we are clearer about what is required. That secondary legislation deserves proper scrutiny and should come to this House for consideration in exactly the same agreeable, convivial, co-operative and collaborative spirit that has engendered during the course of our considerations of these matters thus far. None the less, we need to have proper scrutiny, of a non-partisan kind, as we enjoyed in another area we have been debating recently—electric and autonomous vehicles. My legacy is so wide and deep that I hesitate to go further, because we could speak about so many things. I am a man of the future with an eye to the past.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I wish to echo my right hon. Friend’s tribute to himself, as he was indeed a visionary on electric vehicles and there will in due course be a Hayes electric vehicle launched in this country.
Mr Hayes
My right hon. Friend and I enjoyed many happy moments—it seemed much longer than that—on the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill Committee recently. His contribution to that Committee, may I say with absolute seriousness, was very important. It helped to shape and hone the legislation in a way that, had he not been there would not have happened. I could say the same about colleagues on the other side of the Chamber, too. Proper scrutiny in this House does improve legislation and we should never assume that we are merely going through the motions—that is not what this House is about. At its best, it is the very apex of good democratic polities.
Mr Evans
I am more past than future, that is for certain, but I am as excited as my right hon. Friend about the potential for space development, particularly in a multi-billion industry in the UK, which is growing at an incredible 8% a year. As we have the desire to put more satellites into space, so that we can do all these wonderful things he has spoken about, is he happy and content that the Bill gives sufficient regard to debris mitigation to ensure that we are not just putting more junk for the future into space?
Mr Hayes
To avoid delaying the House unduly, I refer my hon. Friend to Room, The Space Journal, which contains an article that I was reading just this weekend on exactly that point. It is headed “Space debris break point” and sets out precisely the kind of risks and problems he highlights. It is unsurprising he does so, given his interest in this subject and the expertise he has gained in it over many years. I am sure that reading that will allow him to take the matter further, perhaps by tabling some difficult written questions for the new Minister, of the kind that my officials used to bring to me, not just often, but daily. I merely echo what he and others have said: that the UK space industry is indeed a leading world player. The income for the industry in 2014-15 was reported at £13.7 billion, which is equivalent to 6.5% of the global space economy. As has been said, it is a rapidly growing industry. It is growing much faster than the economy as a whole. This is something we do well and can do still better, but only if Government play their part.
So what is that part? It is definitely about creating the legal framework necessary to build certainty. Investors will not spend money in the UK space industry, or will not continue to do so, unless they know that the legal framework to provide appropriate protections is in place. Secondly, it is about facilitating and encouraging the co-operation that is at the heart of the industry. I refer to the co-operation between the world of academia, industry and Government. That is what Reaction Engines, for example, embodies; it is an example of such co-operation, and others are too. Thirdly, it is about trying to anticipate those future changes, although not to stipulate them and certainly not to constrain any of the organisations involved in the sector, because, as I have said, there will be secondary legislation. This is just the beginning of a journey—a journey into space, one might say—which is certainly not definitive. It could not be so, because of the nature and the character of the technology with which we are dealing.
There are, though, some challenges with the Bill. I acknowledged them as Minister and know that the current Minister will do so too. There are certainly challenges in respect of liability. I would be surprised if, in our scrutiny of the Bill, we did not face up to that and ensure that the sector feels no doubt about the effect on the wider public of any changes that follow the advent of launch facilities in the UK.
This is not a lesson to the current Minister, because he is already experienced, but it is a lesson to newer Ministers. It is true that some—they may even be civil servants—will say, “But what about state aid, Minister?” There are those who will say, “But what about the Treasury, Minister?” These are always the stock lines. The first is, “The Secretary of State doesn’t agree with you,” to which one says, “I’ve cleared it with the Secretary of State.” They then say, “Downing Street’s not happy,” and one says, “I have been to Downing Street.” They then say, “The Treasury will never wear it,” and finally state aid gets pulled out—“It won’t pass the test of state aid.” I take the simple view that the purpose of a Government is to aid those whom they serve. We should support British industry and the British people. I have never been entirely convinced by the arguments about state aid; what is the purpose of a state if it does not aid the circumstances of the people it serves?
I urge caution—I put it no more strongly than that—that in our consideration of liability we do not allow ourselves to do less than we should. We must leave no third party worse off as a result of anything that occurs in this industry and which follows the Bill. We must leave no one feeling vulnerable and no business feeling that anything that results from the Bill might lead to a vulnerability that might prevent further development of or investment in a technology. The liability issue must be settled.
The second challenge is that of skills. It is known that I take a profound interest in the development of skills and we have made great progress in recalibrating our estimation of the importance of technical, vocational and practical skills. I have long believed that it is those skills, aptitudes, tastes and talents that will allow us to make the best of the opportunities that will grow as we increasingly develop as a high-tech, high-skilled nation. Our future lies in that direction, but we must have the people to make that future a reality.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I add my praise of my right hon. Friend to that already expressed. I served on the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill Committee—one of my first—for which he was the Minister. It was an illuminating and inspiring experience to be on the same Bill Committee as him and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Space has an inspirational value—there is something inspiring about it that really will turn on the younger generation to the study of the technical subjects that my right hon. Friend is describing.
Mr Hayes
Yes, it is true—I think the shadow Minister made this point, and perhaps the Minister did, too—that there is a particular allure to this kind of technology. It is exciting. We are reminded of that first space race when, as I said, Kennedy spoke of the new frontier. There is something wonderful and marvellous about looking to the heavens as men and women have looked to the heavens since men and women began, when God made Adam and Eve. It is certainly true that young people will be attracted to the industry, but if we are to take advantage of this opportunity, we need them in significant numbers indeed. It is still true that we underestimate the value of technical and vocational competencies.
Let me cite some figures. According to the OECD, fewer than 10% of the UK adult population aged between 20 and 45 have professional education and training qualifications, compared with more than 15% in the United States and Australia and almost 20% in Germany. It is the mid-range technical qualifications, which lead to higher technical learning, that require greater attention and further progress. As I say, we have made strides, but we can do still more. To satisfy the needs of companies such as Reaction Engines and many others, we will need to do more, and that requires the collaboration that I described. That is the second challenge.
The final challenge is to continue the spirit in which this debate began. We must understand that across the House and throughout the nation there is a willingness to make this work; to make it happen. If we can maintain that kind of enthusiasm—if we can make this glitter and sparkle—we will retain, maintain and grow that spirit. This is a British success story, but we must not rest on our laurels. The Bill is indeed far-sighted, and if it passes Second Reading, receives the scrutiny that it deserves and becomes an Act, it will send a signal to the space industry that not only the Government but more still this House understands the industry’s potential and what can be achieved.
In the end, it will be about changing lives by changing life chances. It is easy for us to define all such matters in technological terms, but really these are distinctly, profoundly human matters. How can space and space travel make lives richer? All that we do with the Bill in this House must be founded on the principle that our duty, indeed our mission, is to promote the common good and the national interest. This Bill does just that.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). I, too, enjoyed a little glass of sherry in his office before Christmas, as we had assumed that he would be taking this Bill through the House. When the Hayes manual for the autonomous and electric vehicle becomes available, I am sure that he will have further cause to celebrate.
It is today two years exactly since Tim Peake did his spacewalk. Those who were Members then and active on space issues will remember that the day before that walk we had a Back-Bench debate in the Chamber to celebrate the UK space industry. I had the honour of opening that debate with a statement that I had been sent by William Shatner. I hope that in this debate we will have slightly fewer cheesy puns, but I tie no one down and make no promises. That debate highlighted the growth potential of the industry, which has increased massively in the past 10 to 15 years.
There is growing recognition that space is no longer, as I mentioned in that debate, something that the Americans and Russians do and nothing to do with anybody else. As the Minister said, nor is it about big, expensive expeditions to the moon or to Mars, much as they may go ahead. It is about the commercial potential of things such as space tourism, microgravity research and, eventually, hyperbolic flight over distance. The Reaction Engines air-breathing rocket engine has been mentioned. That company’s aspiration is the Skylon space plane that could see us flying to Japan or Australia in literally a few hours, simply by using that technique of going up to touch the edge of space and coming back down.
One of the main industries in which the UK already leads is satellites. We have two types of satellite. Geostationary satellites sit 36,000 km up from the equator, which means that it takes them exactly 24 hours to go around, so they stay above the same part of the Earth. These are the big guys, used for GPS, telecoms and television. We also have polar satellites, which orbit perpendicular to that orbit. They are much lower down—basically, 100 km to 200 km up—they are often smaller, and the Earth turns underneath them. They are looking at the Earth, so they give us information about weather and can monitor things such as trafficking. They can monitor fishing in marine protected areas by observing the transponders in fishing fleets. They are used for all sorts of things, including flooding, natural disasters, town planning and so on. That is where there is a huge growth going forward.
The UK has expertise in satellite production. Galileo, which has been mentioned, will eventually be a civil replacement for the military GPS, which is American. The first UK manufacturer of smaller satellites was Surrey Satellite Technology, which reduced a satellite from the size of a double-decker bus to that of a fridge. The satellite was eventually reduced to the size of a microwave, and now we are talking about something the size of a carton of milk. We have CubeSats and even micro-satellites, such as Unicorn. Glasgow, near where I live, has produced more satellites than any other city in Europe. We have Spire, Clyde Space and Alba Orbital. We are also lucky enough to have two universities in Glasgow and Strathclyde with major space research units, which obviously feed that development.
In these innovative industries, it is this combination of people who are adventurous and willing to try things and academics with their enabling abilities that brings about an ability to launch. At the moment, all launching is from overseas, most of it from Kazakhstan. Once a satellite has been made, it has to wait until there is a space—excuse the pun, I did not mean that one—where there is room for it to get into space. The problem is that that is keeping the cost high. I was told that if we get the launch of a satellite to below £50,000, the industry will literally burgeon. That is what we are looking to do with the smaller satellites. They are lower orbit, and they will eventually decay—they do not last forever. That is where the comment about space debris comes in. The smaller the satellite, the more that it will burn itself up when the time comes and its orbit starts to decay.
We have seen 71% growth in the industry since the UK Space Agency was set up in 2010. The turnover now is £14 billion and, as has been said, the aspiration is for it to be £40 billion by 2030, so essentially we want it to be three times bigger. Scotland punches above its weight. We have 18% of the UK space industry, but we need a launch site in the UK. When we debated this matter two years ago, we thought that moving to a launch site was imminent, but here we are, two years later, and, actually, we still do not have one. Unfortunately, that has created a bit of planning blight. There was a time back then when it was a competition. Part of what we did in that debate was to make the case that it should not be; that there should be a licensing system, because then it would not nail it down to only one site.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am honoured to represent a constituency where one of the shortlisted potential spaceport sites is located in Llanbedr. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that the space industry offers the potential to bring science, technology, engineering and maths jobs and STEM salaries to all UK nations and that the Westminster Government should play their part in enabling that through licensing and facilitating future projects.
Dr Whitford
I agree with everything the hon. Lady says. As I said, we will have tourism, hyperbolic flights and satellites. Different spaceports might develop different specialisms, so we should not be trying to shut down this industry. Although there will be a first—I am incredibly delighted that the site in my constituency in Prestwick has moved from being a rank outsider to one of the leading contenders—we should not have any sense of “there can be only one”. Prestwick was the first passenger airport in Scotland. We could not imagine Scotland now with only one airport. We do not know where this industry will be in 2030—perhaps hyperbolic flights for long distance will be the norm. Therefore, we do not want to shut down any site.
Of course, as the only place that Elvis put his feet down, Prestwick is already famous. From the point of view of being the first—I mean the first—UK spaceport, it is known for already having a long runway. It is particularly known for its clear weather, which is why it is the back-up airport for the whole UK. It has better visibility and less low cloud even than Newquay, which is hundreds of miles further south.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady confirm that Prestwick has clear airspace and that there is not another commercial airport within the vicinity that shares that airspace, because that is quite important.
Dr Whitford
We actually have quite a lot of airspace in that we take off right across the Atlantic. National Air Traffic Services has its air traffic control centre based in our airport. It has already been consulted and has explained that there is no significant issue from the point of view of airspace and launching. Our airport has very good transport, with road and rail links. Having both the air traffic centre and an aerospace cluster onsite strengthens it. Although we talk a lot about the spaceport, what we do not yet have is the routine development of the launch vehicles, and they will evolve hugely in the next decade. Therefore, the more we have the ability to bring expertise together to do that, the stronger and the quicker we will achieve it.
Obviously, the aim of the Bill is to do with licensing, which I welcome because it allows any site to aim to become a spaceport, but it is also to create, as was mentioned, a regulatory framework for sub-orbital and outer space, or orbital spaceflight activities. It amends the Outer Space Act 1986 to make it simply apply outside the UK and be replaced by this Bill within the UK. The regulator is likely to be the Civil Aviation Authority for horizontal take-off and sub-orbital, and the UK Space Agency for vertical take-off and orbital or outer space missions.
Looking at the Bill itself, some issues have already been highlighted, but the biggest one is that of liability, which is causing real concern among the industry. It is the Government who compensate someone who is affected—either their property or their person—by a UK launch or satellite and the company must indemnify the Government. The cap is something that protects that company. What the company has to do is find insurance. At the moment, the cap is set at €60 million per satellite launch under the Outer Space Act. It is important that a figure is arrived at, but we are talking about launches that will have quite a broad range of risk depending on the scale of the satellite.
There is discussion in the Bill and the explanatory notes about using red, amber and green to describe the types of missions, so there might well be slightly different caps. It will also be important that we no longer say “per satellite” because the micro-satellites, such as Unicorn or CubeSats, go up in clusters. If the figure were €60 million for every one of them, that would be prohibitive, but to get insurance for unlimited liability is not really possible, which is why, in the Deregulation Act 2015, this limit was introduced. Other states such as America, Australia and France have a cap on liability. I understand from the Minister that that matter will be discussed, but a cap will need to be set or people will still to choose launch from elsewhere.
It is also really important that we look at the regulations themselves. It is very disappointing that we have no draft regulations to scrutinise; we have instead this absolute burgeoning of delegated powers. I understand the need for flexibility, but the original target was launching in 2020, and there was mention in the Lords that the regulations might not be ready until two years after Royal Assent—the middle of 2020. How do we expect a spaceport to design itself to meet regulations that are not available? How do we expect people to invest in that? How do we expect people in the industry to raise money on the basis of regulations that, suddenly when they come out, might completely rule out a company, a project or even a spaceport site? It is really important that the decision on regulations gets a bit of rocket fuel under its bahookie and starts moving forward.
In general terms, there is the slippage of the timeline. We had a long time of planning blight when it was described as a competition, with all five—it was eight at the time—sites sitting waiting to see who would win, and so nothing happened for a year and a half. Now another year and a half has passed, with things moving forward slowly. We need a little bit of speed.
At the moment, the Government are supporting spaceport sites and launch companies with grants. It is crucial that domestic launch companies should be considered within that—and that includes Reaction Engines—to ensure that they get the funding to take forward the air-breathing rocket engine.
In my area, there is also the issue of orbital access. If our spaceports are just to be three-kilometre slabs of tarmac used by someone from the States once or twice a year, they will not stimulate the industry as we want them to. We need a domestic capability that can launch the satellites when the satellite companies want them to be launched. It is imperative that, in providing the seed money, we are not just sitting back and waiting for Virgin or XCOR to come in; we must invest in our domestic launch companies. We also want the manufacturing—the supply chain all the way through. We do not want just to be providing a piece of land to be used on one day.
As other Members have mentioned, we want the Bill to stimulate the whole industry and to be the key of innovation as well as the stimulus and inspiration for the next generation to take on the STEM subjects and see their future in a burgeoning space industry.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak about this important Bill and to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who shares my keen interest in this matter.
I greatly welcome the Bill, which will set out the framework for the growth and development of this exciting sector. If we are to maintain and improve our national position as a global economic power, it is vital that we should participate fully in the expected growth of the space industry. It is absolutely right that the Government should be ambitious and that they are putting in place the necessary measures to ensure that our country benefits from the rise in demand for commercial satellites and the emerging sub-orbital spaceflights.
As we have heard, there is the potential for people to fly from this country to Australia in about four hours. I add something for the consideration of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman): that is quicker than it takes me to get from London to my constituency in Cornwall by train. Will my hon. Friend look favourably on the Peninsula Rail Task Force report on reducing train travel times to the west country so that I can get home as quickly as I hope to be able to get to Australia one day?
If the Government had not taken the opportunity to draw up the Bill and put the regulation and licensing framework in place, it would have been a dereliction of duty: the missing of a golden opportunity for the future of our nation. That is why I greatly welcome the Bill and am delighted to support it. We have to be ready to move quickly. We live in a fast-changing world in which we are surrounded by new and emerging technologies. We have already heard about the potential of autonomous vehicles, and I put the space sector alongside that technology—we are going to see rapid change and growth in the space sector, and we as a country need to be ready and to have the regulations in place. We need to support our businesses and industry so that we can make the most of the coming opportunities.
My one concern about the Bill, also mentioned by other Members, is about limited liability for operators. I have met a number of potential operators and all have raised the desperate need for clarity about the limit of liability. They cannot currently get insurance and that could be a brake on investment in this emerging industry. Will the Minister consider that quickly as the Bill progresses so that we can provide certainty to the industry and so that it can know the limits and get insurance cover? That would give it the confidence to develop further.
As many Members will be aware, I have a particular interest in this matter. Cornwall Airport Newquay is in the constituency that I have the honour of representing, and it is one of the potential sites for the UK’s first spaceport. I was not going to go into detail about why I think Newquay should be the first spaceport, but as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire promoted Prestwick, I feel duty bound to do the same for Newquay.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
Will my hon. Friend clarify what I think was misunderstood by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)? Unlike Prestwick, which is near Glasgow airport, Newquay is not competing with another airport for airspace. Is that my hon. Friend’s understanding as well?
Steve Double
Absolutely. Newquay has several things in its favour. It has a very large runway and easy access to uncongested airspace over the Atlantic. There are literally hundreds of acres of development land in an enterprise zone ready for developing the necessary business and manufacturing that would support a spaceport. Uniquely, I believe, we also have the space enterprise zone through our partnership with Goonhilly satellite station. That makes us in Newquay very well placed to be the first UK spaceport.
Although Newquay should be the first spaceport, it should not be the only one. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said so well, there will be a need for further spaceports as the industry grows in our country. I believe that we will want to be launching satellites, putting people into space and operating sub-orbital flights from across the country, not just one location, much as I would love Newquay to be that location.
Mr Nigel Evans
My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that I am not about to make a bid for the Ribble Valley.
Particularly if we get more than one spaceport, that will be a great boost to industries and SMEs that are interested in space. Some may be involved in contracts with the European Space Agency, to which we gave £1.4 billion in additional funding from 2016 for five years. Does my hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of what we do domestically and of our leaving the European Union, we should continue our investment in that agency? That is not a European Union issue.
Steve Double
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes his point well. Another concern of the UK sector is our continued involvement in the European Space Agency post-Brexit. I join him in urging the Government to continue to play an active part and to participate in that agency, as that will be essential for the industry in this country.
Vicky Ford
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital that we continue to take part not just in the European Space Agency but in its downstream operations? I am thinking about data sharing and the ability to bid on downstream contracts.
Steve Double
I agree. We need to continue to participate in the industry on a global scale; probably more than any other, it cannot be restricted to just one country. It is essential for us to continue to participate in the global sector, whether in the EU or in other parts of the world.
If the spaceport came to Cornwall, it would give a huge economic benefit to one of the most deprived and lowest paid parts of the country. Cornwall is well known for its tourism and food and drink sectors, which are absolutely vital for our local economy. Who knows? One day, Cornwall could also be sending tourists into space. Generally, however, those sectors are regarded as low paid and providing limited career opportunities for people. We are trying to change that perception, but that is often how they are regarded.
Cornwall has an illustrious history when it comes to engineering and innovation. Let us remember that the steam engine, which brought about the industrial revolution, was invented there. The first ever transatlantic telegram—the forerunner of the modern communication revolution—was sent from Cornish soil. Now, Cornwall is ready to play its part at the heart of the space industry of the future. Newquay’s bid is backed right across Cornwall by the business sector, the chamber of commerce, the local enterprise partnership and Cornwall Council. We are ambitious and we want to play our part to the full.
The LEP has estimated that bringing the spaceport to Cornwall would create some 1,000 new, well-paid jobs, which could be vital to our future economy. In addition, I believe that it would do something that is beyond economic measure, namely to inspire Cornish young people and provide them with the opportunities that they desperately need. For far too long, our Cornish young people have faced the choice of staying in Cornwall and lowering their aspirations, or leaving to fulfil their potential and pursue a career. Bringing such jobs to Cornwall would give our brightest and best the opportunity to have a well-paid job and a good career in an exciting sector in Cornwall, rather than having to leave.
Dr Whitford
Regardless of where the spaceport is, I would hope that the future space industry in the UK will be diffuse, just as we have Surrey satellites and Glasgow satellites. The idea is not for the whole industry to be where the spaceport is. I hope that that aspiration will remain, whether Cornwall is No. 1, is No. 2 or takes a bit longer to get a spaceport.
Steve Double
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I agree with her. We cannot put a value on the inspiration that would be provided for our young people by having a spaceport, which they could see and interact with, on Cornish soil. As has been mentioned, we saw the inspiration that Tim Peake brought to schools across the country. We recently had the Bloodhound at Newquay airport, and 4,000 Cornish schoolchildren had the inspirational opportunity of going on a day out to see the rocket car going down the runway. That gave them an incredible sense of what was possible, and it inspired them to engage with science and engineering and pursue STEM subjects. Putting the spaceport in Cornwall would have a similar, ongoing effect on Cornish schoolchildren. We have lacked such ways of inspiring our young people for far too long.
I will bring my thoughts to a conclusion. I am happy to support the Bill, whether or not there is a vote this evening. I am delighted that the Government have introduced it at this point, and I believe we need to get on with it. I am absolutely delighted that the Government are backing the industry by giving it the confidence and framework that it needs to move forward, and that they are ambitious for our country to be a world leader in this sector. Cornwall is ambitious about playing its part to the full.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for making such a good choice. I welcome the new Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), to his place. He has moved seamlessly from his previous role as a Minister with responsibility for science. When he held that role, we had many interactions about space and space legislation.
The SNP welcomes the Bill and supports its aim of ensuring that the UK and Scotland can take advantage of new markets, overcome our dependence on foreign launch sites and benefit from the development of new spaceports and supply chains. The space industry has the potential to be worth billions of pounds to the UK economy, but proper investment must be made and work undertaken by all sides to ensure that it is a success.
As a number of Members have mentioned, space is an inspiration. I suppose the first big space development that people are aware of—if we disregard Sputnik, which is possibly not fair—is the Apollo missions to the moon. They were slightly before my time, but I understand their impact. The 1980s were the era of the space shuttle, and I remember as a child the great excitement around a space shuttle launch. An event in 1983 probably shaped my future career as a physics teacher. The space shuttle took part in a European tour, piggybacked on a jumbo jet, and—I do not know how many Members remember this—it flew over Glasgow. On that day in 1983, we heard the jumbo jet from our primary school classroom and ran outside to the playground, where we saw the most spectacular sight. It was quite incredible to see the size of the jumbo jet with this tiny thing stuck on the back, and even more incredible to think that that tiny thing was able to go into space.
The next big development, which happened when I was a young teacher, was the Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn. It was launched just over 20 years ago, in 1997, to investigate Saturn and its moons. The mission was supposed to be quite short, but it was extended several times because of the discoveries that were made and the volume of data. One of the big discoveries concerned the moon Enceladus. Until that point, Enceladus had been seen as a tiny, icy and fairly nondescript rock in space, but the mission discovered that jets of water vapour were firing from the surface of the moon into space. Liquid water is incredibly important, as we all know; liquid water is the foundation of life. Suddenly, this icy and seemingly irrelevant moon became very important in our consideration of the potential for life in other places.
Finally, I want to mention Tim Peake. I was already a Member of this place when Tim Peake was launched into space, and his mission has inspired a new generation of young people to consider STEM careers and careers in the space industry. Over the years of the space race, we have moved from looking out the way and trying to see what is out there to looking in the way and providing data for us here on Earth. Increasingly, satellites—several Members have mentioned them—provide just such information, and they have become fundamental to our way of life. From maps and navigation systems to up-to-date weather forecasting, those satellites offer us information that we could not previously get.
Despite some embarrassing comments—I am sorry to bring the tone down slightly—last summer from a member of the Scottish Conservative party who described the industry as “science fiction”, the space industry in Scotland is flourishing. The first company was Clyde Space, which was founded in 2005 by Craig Clark. It was named after the River Clyde, on the banks of which it sits. Craig Clark had the ambition that it took to set up Clyde Space. He knew that there was the talent required in Glasgow, and that the universities—Strathclyde, Glasgow and the West of Scotland—had space-facing courses. They have been adapted to work with the satellite industries in Glasgow, and that has been a huge success.
Clyde Space has a vision. At one point, 25% of all ships were built in Glasgow, and the company has a similar vision for spacecraft—a vision that we in Glasgow are well placed to fulfil. When Clyde Space came to Glasgow, it had a multiplier effect. Alba Orbital, only a mile and a half away from Clyde Space, makes pocketqube satellites, which are tiny satellites that weigh about half a kilogram. Unicorn-1, the first pocketqube satellite, was developed in partnership with the European Space Agency and is due for launch this year.
Another company, Spire Global, is coincidentally located in the same building in the centre of Glasgow as Clyde Space. Spire’s headquarters are actually in San Francisco, but it was looking to expand and chose Glasgow for some very good reasons. The chief executive talked about the high quality research taking place in Glasgow, and the skilled technicians. Spire develops its own satellites and, unlike the other satellite manufacturers, launches them and sells on the data, including data about weather and tracking ships at sea. It does something different. These three companies together have ensured that Glasgow is now a European hub for CubeSats, and is now building more than any other place in Europe.
All hon. Members will, of course, champion their own constituencies as the potential location of the spaceport. But, just like the ambition of Clyde Space and Craig Clark, we should look further; we should look into having a number of spaceports. Scotland is absolutely spoilt for choice. Machrihanish in the Kintyre peninsula, and Stornoway airport in Na h-Eileanan Iar have potential. The A’Mhoine peninsula in Sutherland is another entrant to the spaceport race. More recently, it has been suggested that Unst in Shetland offers the opportunity of launching north straight into orbit, without passing over any centres of population. And, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has already mentioned, Prestwick airport has an extra-long runway and fog-free facilities, which give it a huge advantage.
The educational opportunities of having a spaceport cannot be underestimated. As a teacher, I had the real privilege of working with the Scottish Space School at the University of Strathclyde, which sent students from Scotland to Houston in Texas for a week-long programme of activities about space; in fact, those trips still happen. If we get this legislation right, we have the potential to do that again here in the UK—in Scotland.
The regulation must support the work that companies are doing. A number of Members have mentioned launch sites. Manufacturers will always launch from the most economically viable location. The difficulty with the UK just now is that it is considered to be far more stringent in its jurisdiction than other locations. The third party liability cap has also been mentioned. The cap must be in place and it must be realistic in order for operators to get the insurance. Without it, CubeSats currently manufactured in Glasgow will continue to be transported to other locations, even when we have a spaceport. The difficulty for the UK space industry is that some countries will require the satellites to be manufactured there in order for them to get the licences to launch. Although that is not currently a big issue, it could be an issue for future investment. If restricted regulation causes the developers to invest elsewhere, we will lose out on future business, regardless of the attractiveness of locations such as Glasgow.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in August last year, and I got a reply from the then Science Minister, who is in his place today. He said that
“some small satellites can represent an increased risk over larger satellites as they often operate in the most congested regions of space, they rarely have any means of propulsion and can be difficult to track”.
Now, that is the case regardless of where we launch from, so we must get the legislation right to ensure that we can launch from the UK. The Minister went on to say:
“The UK Space Agency is also reviewing the UK’s approach to third party liability insurance, in particular with regard to small satellites and large constellations.”
I hope that this will ensure that a reasonable cap is placed on the liability for operators. Without it, they cannot get insurance; and without insurance, there will be no launches.
The Government have a duty to support this industry. Reaction Engines has been mentioned a number of times. The Minister has already mentioned the £65 million investment that I believe Reaction Engines finally received in 2016, but it was promised that money in 2013, so the company was trying to develop for three years without getting funding. We need to be realistic about the funding.
Brexit poses some threats to the space industry, to which collaborations and people are key. These people need assurances, not the ongoing uncertainty of the current situation. I found myself in the strange position a few moments ago of agreeing with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) when he raised concerns about the Galileo project. We must ensure that we protect UK industries in that project. If suppliers for Galileo must be part of an EU state, our suppliers are under threat. There must be protections in place for them. The Galileo and Copernicus programmes were both designed by the European Space Agency, but they have been built with EU funds. This money is funnelled through member states of the single market only. The UK currently receives about 15% of inward investment from the European space budget, but its contributions account for only 12%. The UK Government must make up the difference to ensure that there is continued financial support for space-related activities.
There is a great potential in space, and great potential for us to get the legislation right. Let us hope that we can work together to ensure that the UK space industry gets what it needs. This is one area of UK Government policy that has the potential to be frictionless.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
It is an absolute delight to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). At least Scottish National Members are here taking an interest. It is really strange that there is now only one MP—who has just come into the Chamber—on the Back Benches from the official Opposition, and that is the Opposition Whip. Obviously, the Labour party has no interest in the future prosperity of the country.
I thank the Department for Transport for having the foresight and ambition for the country to bring forward this important Bill. There are many small steps and, indeed, giant leaps that need to be taken as we, as beings, explore the frontier that lies beyond the atmosphere.
I am proud to be Cornish, and I am very proud of the fact that Cornwall has always been at the forefront of new innovation. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) has already said—I do not apologise for repeating it—Cornwall has done that throughout its history, with inventors and engineers such as Richard Trevithick, who built the first steam locomotive; Jonathan Hornblower, who invented the compound engine and the steam valve; and Arthur Woolf, who invented the high pressure compound steam engine. Cornwall has a history of innovators when it comes to engines.
Cornwall has also been at the cutting edge of communications. Porthcurno, before it was used as a location for “Poldark”, was the point at which many submarine telegraph cables—transatlantic and to other locations—came ashore, and was at the centre of UK-international communications. Cornwall was the home of the world’s first parabolic satellite communications antenna at Goonhilly—at one time, the largest satellite earth station in the world. More recently, Cornwall has seen great steps forward as the Bloodhound team attempts to create the fastest car. I was fortunate enough to meet the team in Parliament and have a go in their simulator. I have to confess that I was not very good, and I am sure they would not employ me as a driver, but I wish them well with their goals.
In this light, I want to see Cornwall at the forefront of moving forward as we reach into space. Cornwall would be the perfect location for a spaceport. Newquay airport shares its airspace with no one else—the nearest other commercial airport is Exeter, and beyond that, Bristol. Therefore, Newquay airport, with its very large runway, has an ideal opportunity to be the location for the first spaceport. I thank Cornwall Council and the local enterprise partnership for all the fantastic work they have done in putting forward the case that Cornwall should host the spaceport and making sure it has the capacity to do so. The potential for any such facility is great. We have seen an ever-increasing demand in satellites, and that is expected to grow by over 10% over the next decade. However, the true growth will come as we undertake more research. We have already seen massive growth in research, which is, in itself, a growing sector. I want Cornwall to be at the centre of that. This research is where the true advances and the real value will come from.
I look forward to the future and the advances that we are yet to know about. I believe the future is bright—unlike, obviously, the Opposition. It is becoming clear that a lot of this future development will come as we go boldly beyond our atmosphere into the next stage of our progression as human beings. I look forward to this transformation and want to see Cornwall at the centre of it.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has put a very strong case for why her constituency should benefit—
Justin Tomlinson
She has put a very strong case for why the whole of Cornwall should benefit from this very exciting Bill.
I very much welcome the Bill. It is an interstellar element of our modern industrial strategy setting out how the UK will become a leading player in the commercial space age. This is really exciting. I am delighted to hear all the MPs, right across the House, pitching for why their constituencies should host future spaceports. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) suggests that I am pitching for North Swindon. I am delighted to say that Swindon proudly hosts the UK Space Agency head office. We have the power; we are the strategic decision makers. I can assure hon. Members that all the key bodies at the head office will be listening to this debate eagerly as each MP pitches for their constituency to be at the forefront of this fantastic advancement in our modern industrial strategy.
I was very excited to visit the UK Space Agency again very recently, meeting the chief executive, Graham Turnock. It was one of my favourite visits. He was incredibly passionate, and patient with the 8 million questions that I had, including where we had got to in finding aliens. There are 120 employees at the head office. I was struck by how passionate they were, from the chief executive right down to the apprentices, who had fought for that unique, truly exciting and inspirational opportunity that they wanted to seize and have a career connected with space. It was a really memorable visit. As a constituency MP, I am very proud that we are at the heart of that head office. I was fascinated as they set out how this industry impacts not just on the obvious areas but on the energy sector, the finance sector, the health sector, defence, telecoms and transport. It is cutting edge in terms of climate change and dealing with natural disasters. It is right back on our streets with local authorities, helping with bin collections, planning applications and planning development. It is amazing how diverse the impact can be.
There is huge potential, with 8% growth year on year in the past decade. The Government are rightly committed to getting a 10% share of the global space economy by 2030, worth £40 billion. I suspect that that is why there is so much cross-party support for this very important Bill, which will benefit the UK. The UK’s aerospace supply chain, manufacturers and service providers will benefit from opportunities to participate in the new market for small satellite launch and sub-orbital flight. Local jobs and economies will benefit from the creation of spaceport sites and the businesses needed to support them, such as tourism, hospitality and construction. There will be a real boost to UK science and innovation, with cutting-edge research. North Swindon hosts all the research councils that help determine where research grants should be spent, so yet again my constituency will help to influence this. Young people seeking careers in science, technology, engineering and maths will gain new opportunities, and entrepreneurs will benefit from increased opportunities to build innovative commercial enterprises—no doubt helped by Innovate UK, also hosted by North Swindon. In effect, I am making a pitch for the Minister to visit. It is just one hour away on the train—as he, a Transport Minister, will be very much aware.
Finally, I want to concentrate on a point flagged up by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who spoke of her former role as a physics teacher, and how space inspires young people through their learning, as it genuinely does. It catches their imagination. That is why there are so many films, books and TV shows connected with space. Initially, my knowledge of space was based on that very good, popular TV programme “The Big Bang Theory”, but having had that very exciting and interesting visit to the UK Space Agency, I am now far more knowledgeable.
The focus of young people’s recent inspiration has been on Tim Peake’s six months on the international space station. For example, 600,000 children took part in the seed experiment organised by the UK Space Agency, with Tim Peake’s help, comparing seed growth in space with that back on earth. It is a good job that I did not participate—with my gardening skills, I might have messed up their results. The Tim Peake primary project uses space to increase primary-age children’s engagement with science, numeracy and literacy. When I visit my local schools and talk to teachers about the work that the UK Space Agency does with its school visits and helping to inspire children, they are all really keen to take advantage of those resources. I urge the Minister to talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education to try to use this further, because it is genuinely inspirational. Tim Peake himself sets individual challenges. Young people from Swindon Academy, a secondary school in my constituency, pedalled and ran a combined 400 km, which is the altitude of the international space station as it orbits around the earth. That was a really good way to connect space with a way of learning.
This is a truly exciting Bill. It has huge potential financially for the UK in creating jobs and growth, inspiring the next generation, and uniting all political parties across the House. Together with all colleagues, I look forward to supporting the Bill as it progresses through the House.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I certainly agree with the parting shot that I heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson).
I am tiptoeing into this debate from a position of enthusiasm but not very much knowledge. I am learning quietly and quickly, and have been for some weeks. I am very aware of the Bill’s importance, but also, as others have said, of having a spaceport—or two. The thought of the All Blacks flying on an A380 for two or three hours to Australia and for four hours from Australia to this country, and then landing in Devon or Cornwall and tiptoeing on to a train to take another four hours to reach London is an exciting one. However, from the knowledge I have been learning, it seems to me that we need more than one site—and, because the Bill is going through, we need this urgently—and they should have facilities for vertical launch, horizontal launch or both.
Space and the space industry have been of considerable interest to me ever since I was a lad in New Zealand. I hasten to add that, as I have already said, my interest is not matched by knowledge. My knowledge has been further stimulated, however, by discovering and visiting on several occasions not just the Surrey satellite business that was mentioned, but—closer to home for me—the Mullard Space Science Laboratory in my constituency. It is part of University College London, and has been working on that site in Holmbury St Mary for over 70 years. I would be delighted to take the Minister, and even the Secretary of State, for a visit—if we can find it; it is hidden away.
Mullard is in an old manor house with beautiful grounds in the hills above and beyond Dorking. As one enters through the archway with its double doors into the foyer, one sees standing—alongside the ancient chandelier, and heading up into the wooden stairwell—two rockets from a bygone day. One only has to be there a wee while, however, to feel the pulse of the IQ of the scientific intelligence, which is quite staggering, of the people all around the site. There are modern buildings at the back, including a fantastic laboratory, and room for a little bit more building.
Mullard supports the Bill. At present, anything developed by the Mullard centre or other commercial or research organisations—this has been mentioned—is taken away from the UK to be launched. As the Mullard people have explained to me, this often means a loss of control. With the Bill and the development of our launch sites, which must go hand in hand and promptly, we will now be able to utilise British research and expertise in Britain to the benefit of Britain.
To give a feel of the importance of that, I wish to dwell for a few moments on the broad spectrum of the research going on. Just at this centre, there are 180 people—academics, engineers, post-doctoral researchers, postgraduate students and support staff. The research areas are staggering: they are doing astrophysics, solar physics, space plasma physics and planetary science, and researching climate extremes on earth, space medicine, space imaging analysis and detection systems. They are world-renowned experts in manufacturing scientific space instruments, although those instruments go not into our satellites but elsewhere.
Those at the centre have contributed equipment and expertise to projects such as Euclid, which is studying dark matter, the ExoMars rover, the solar orbiter—a large spacecraft mission that includes three Mullard-built plasma instruments—and the ESA solar wind electronic instrument. Additionally, they are partners in the team building an instrument containing three extreme ultraviolet telescopes. The Mullard team are building the electronics that will make them work. Perhaps most interestingly at the moment—this has been mentioned—they are building miniature instruments on QB50 CubeSats, which are small satellites of 30 cm by 10 cm by 10 cm. They are being deployed from the international space station, not from the United Kingdom. With the Bill and the development of the launch sites, I hope that UK firms will soon be able to directly operate the satellites they build and the instruments within them. Reaction Engines has been touched on, and it is vital that such British inventions remain in our hands.
I want to mention a few other points, some of which have also been touched on. Anyone with any knowledge, even if is as limited as mine, can see there is a huge future in space technology. Alongside the Bill, we need to establish the structure for launching spacecraft from the United Kingdom, whether those launches are vertical or horizontal. This will enable the development of commercial applications, of which the most talked about—it has been mentioned several times today—is of course space tourism. However, other considerable commercial prospects are being developed. The most understandable is the launching worldwide of constellations of satellites, particularly those to provide worldwide broadband facilities. I understand this is commercially in the offing, and it should be helped in the United Kingdom both by the Bill and—if I may repeat myself—by the provision of at least one site and possibly two or more sites. The Minister will be aware of that, and we have clearly rubbed it in throughout this debate.
In looking at the Bill, we must make sure that the new legislation does not hold back commercial and scientific development and research. The way in which the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), talked made me feel gloomy, because regulation can cripple just such developments. For example, a huge effort is now being put into developing nano-satellites and constellations of satellites, and there is a realistic prospect of the world benefiting from constellations of satellites across the world.
We must, however, be careful for two reasons. First, there has been some mention of space debris and its generation, and the dangers of collisions are obvious. All the equipment shot into space has an end to its operational life, which may be a considerable number of years; indeed, some of the Mullard equipment is still running extremely successfully 15 years after its launch. I understand that this is under discussion and that the Minister may feel it is not appropriate to pass legislation at this time. However, if he is going to do something, I hope he does so with a certain freedom and looks at making the equipment disintegrate by design, so that it burns up as it returns towards the earth.
The second point, which has also been mentioned several times, is indemnifying insurance, a subject in which I have a little interest. We of course need it in case of accidents, which may happen, but we should recognise that we need not be stringent in the level of protection applied. I believe that the negative effect on any firm or research organisation of something going wrong would be far more damaging and would create a bigger hole than the actual financial one. At the moment, because of the cost, the prospect is that the Mullard laboratory will have to transfer the ownership of its developments to countries that have more appropriate arrangements to avert insurance costs and will therefore lose control of the project. That would be disastrous: if we provided the sites and took through the Bill, but then crippled such organisations with insurance liabilities, we would have wasted our time.
I note that, in certain circumstances, the Secretary of State will provide at least part of the indemnity. I am keen for the Government to recognise that they could consider providing more, if not total, cover for research organisations, such as Mullard, developing this equipment —nano-satellites, CubeSats—in carefully selected research projects. In many ways, the UK leads the world in space research and technology, but this problem of indemnity is threatening that position.
I was reminded by a very elderly gentleman that before the second world war rockets were banned in the UK and, I believe, in America, so there was no progress, but they were not banned in Germany, and Germany produced the V2. We need to think and move ahead positively, and I most certainly support the Bill.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the chance to speak in this important debate, and indeed to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). He started his speech by saying that he knew very little about the subject, but I must say that I would hate to hear a speech of his when he knows a lot about the subject. I thought his speech was very thoughtful and insightful, particularly in raising the two topics of space debris and insurance. His speech indicated that the space industry is very sophisticated. When we think about space, all of us—well, me; I would not presume to extend my failings to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members—think about men landing on the moon, but the space industry, like any other, is now on earth. It is very sophisticated, and may be very lucrative and beneficial to countries specialising in it.
I pay tribute to the Minister for introducing this important Bill. Of course, we have to thank George Osborne, who focused on the space industry and many other pioneering industries in his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer. How we miss his forward thinking and sophisticated approach to our economy. Luckily, we have part of his legacy before the House tonight. The Bill builds on previous legislation. It was a Conservative Government who passed the Outer Space Act 1986, and it is a Conservative Government who have brought forward this forward-thinking Bill on the future. That is why the Government Benches are full of people wanting to speak and the Opposition Benches are completely empty.
At first, I wondered why we needed legislation, but anyone who looks at the Bill will see that, through it, we are creating the regulatory framework that will allow the space industry to flourish in the UK, in particular by allowing us to build spaceports and have our own launch sites for satellites. At present, too many UK companies that build satellites rely on finding slots in other jurisdictions, so this will be a big change that helps the micro-satellite industry, as well as emerging industries such as commercial spaceflight and microgravity science. The Bill will create the framework that will help to realise the Government’s ambition for the UK to be one of the world’s leading space economy countries, and help the value of the space economy to quadruple in the next couple of decades.
I remember when many years ago, as a young man, I said I thought I should become a lawyer, and my godfather advised me to become a space lawyer. He was ahead of his time, but the Bill will give opportunities in the growing discipline of space law. I was interested to see in the Bill, for example, the application of criminal law to spacecraft. If that does not herald spaceflight soon becoming mainstream, nothing will.
I wanted to speak in the debate because I represent the wonderful constituency of Wantage, which is 20 minutes closer to London than Swindon—an important point to make to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). Although Swindon is, rightly, a centre for space industry, it is still 20 minutes too far away for the Minister, so I know that when he decides to head west, he will come to Harwell, where he has visited previously to see the extraordinary space industries that are burgeoning there.
It is hard to believe, but none the less true, that 80 space organisations are based in the Harwell space cluster. They include start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises, public sector organisations and major companies such as Airbus, Lockheed Martin and Thales. Some 800 people work on the Harwell campus, their number having grown by approximately 13% every year. The Harwell campus as a whole has benefited from extensive Government investment over many years, with more than £2 billion-worth of scientific facilities employing 5,500 highly skilled people in places such as the diamond synchrotron and neutron spallation source, which is managed by the Science and Technology Facilities Council. I will focus on a few of the organisations found on the campus.
RAL Space—Rutherford Appleton Laboratory’s space arm—has built more than 220 space instruments and ground-based telescopes. In 2015, it opened its national assembly, integration and test facility, which enables satellites ranging in size from CubeSats, which are the size of a whiskey bottle, up to 3 metres in length to be tested and calibrated; they can then be used to observe the Earth, carry satellite communications or help with navigation. I was delighted when the Government announced recently that the £99 million national satellite test facility, which will open in 2020, would be based at Harwell. I thank the Minister for that.
We also have the Satellite Applications Catapult, opened under the last Government as part of the Catapult programme, with more than 120 personnel. A useful organisation, it brings home to a range of companies that might not have thought that satellites were relevant to them ways in which satellite technology can help them. One of the most mundane examples I heard of—but fascinating because it is so random—was that supermarkets can use satellites to monitor their car parks to make more efficient use of the space. My point is that companies large and small that may think space has nothing to do with them beyond powering the satnav in their company cars can use satellite imagery in innovative ways, particularly firms working in agriculture and shipping navigation.
I am also delighted to have the European Space Agency’s European centre for space applications and telecommunications at Harwell. You will be delighted to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the ESA is not part of the European Union, so the Brexiteers cannot mess up the European Space Agency. It will survive the carnage of Brexit. It employs more than 100 people drawn from 17 countries; I hope they will be able to remain here. It also provides support for the development of new products and services: for example, the Pioneer programme supports the setting up of space mission providers, which will facilitate access to space by other developers. The first SMP is the Harwell-based UK company Open Cosmos. The ESA also has a highly successful business incubation centre.
The Space Industry Bill is vital to my constituency. It is an important step to enable spaceflight from the UK. No doubt spaceports will be self-selecting, and I have heard various people make a pitch for one. It would be political suicide for me to pitch my own constituency, where there is large piece of open land that is always the subject of great conflict. People have proposed building a garden town there; others proposed a reservoir, and some residents, in an attempt to stop the reservoir, proposed an airport. However, were their MP to propose a spaceport, I think he would be out on his ear, so I will not nominate my constituency to be the home of a spaceport. None the less, my constituency will benefit from the growth of the space industry enabled by the Bill.
I will make one final point—I see some of my hon. Friends yawning as I reach my peroration. At the end of last year, my good friend Rajeev Chand from Rutberg sent me a fascinating report produced by Morgan Stanley on space disruption. Space is now a thing—we talk about tech disruption and banking disruption, but now space is so well developed that we are getting space disruption. We talk about the UK economy and Government intervention, but it is interesting to see that there is a big private economy in space now, with $2.5 billion invested in companies wholly devoted to space last year alone. Those companies include names we are all familiar with, such as Blue Origin, owned by Jeff Bezos, OneWeb, and SpaceX, which is Elon Musk’s company.
The report points out the different industries operating in space. Landing on the moon is just the sexy part—the tip of the iceberg. Space industries include satellite launches, satellite communications, deep space exploration and lunar landing as well as Earth observation, asteroid mining, space debris—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley—space tourism, space research, manufacturing in space, and so on. Countries all round the world have an interest. Morgan Stanley identifies 90 companies, mainly from the US but also from Israel, India, Korea, Finland and many other countries. There is only one British company on the list of 90 space companies to watch, but—happily confirming my thesis that Harwell is the home of UK space—it is Oxford Space Systems, which is based in Harwell and builds small satellites. It is run by an extraordinary man called Mike Lawton. The first time I met him, he was powering buses with vegetable oil; now, he is building small cube satellites to be launched as a light payload delivering extraordinary benefits.
It is exciting to be debating the Space Industry Bill in the Chamber tonight. I am glad to see that it will not be opposed—nor should it be. It is a pioneering Bill, which builds on work done by this Government over many years to put the UK at the heart of a growing and vital global industry, namely space.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
This is quite a great day for me because I have been the chairman of the parliamentary space committee for nearly four years. When I was elected in 2010, it was the first all-party group I joined, so I have been watching with interest over the past few years how this Bill has proceeded from its embryonic stages—from being just an idea—through various stages of development, to the point we are at today.
I have mentioned the space sector many times before, and that has brought a smile to some people’s faces because they do not realise just what the sector actually means for the UK economy. The space sector brings in £13.7 billion—nearly £14 billion—a year. It has outgrown every other sector by approximately 10% all the way through the recession and the austerity measures. The figure I think we heard tonight is that it has seen 6.5% continual growth over a period of about six years. It has therefore outperformed any other sector in the United Kingdom.
A lot has been said about Brexit issues and about how space will progress. ESA is actually separate from the Brexit issues and the EU, so I hope the projects we have already designed and agreed with ESA will carry on after the United Kingdom has embarked on its solo voyage away from the rest of the EU.
Having a spaceport is extremely important, because the space industry in the United Kingdom is very scattered, but very prolific. We have installations in the seat of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who has just spoken, and in the Leicestershire area. We even have them in my constituency; in fact, there is one above my office, and I often joke that when the phones go off we know that the teleport system is being engaged upstairs.
This is a vast industry. The industries in my area are looking to put satellites into orbit to provide better navigation for ambulance services in the NHS. People do not realise just how big an industry space is and how our everyday lives are affected by it. Satellite navigation in cars, which is taken for granted, comes from the military applications that NASA first sent up back in the 1960s. These things are now trickling down and being used in our everyday lives.
What would I like to see in the future? I think—these are personal, not informed thoughts—that our first spaceport will more than likely be in the Cornwall area. That is purely and simply because of Virgin Galactic and our space industry being opened up on a tourism basis. However, it is important that we branch out to places such as Prestwick; we have to look towards having ballistic installations, so that we can capitalise on deep-space orbits and not just sub-orbital, as we would with space tourism. We have to look towards the future, and this Bill is facilitating our footsteps on the great journey that we are taking.
Kourou in French Guiana is where ESA has a spaceport, and even the former Soviet Union sends up its Soyuz from there. We can therefore see that space is not really a political industry; it is actually for the greater good of humanity.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It may come as a surprise to the House that I have run a satellite business. We launched our satellites from French Guiana, and one reason why we as a company did that was its closeness to the equator, which is terribly important. That is a factor in where people put space launch sites. Near the equator is the best place to launch from.
David Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that very knowledgeable interjection.
Dr Whitford
As I said in my speech—I think the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was not in his place—we have both geostationary and polar satellites. Polar satellites are for earth observation, weather and so on, so you do not need to be near the equator; you want to be near the pole, as Prestwick is.
David Morris
I thank the hon. Lady for that great intervention.
We are talking about £14 billion per annum going into our economy and about 38,000 people being employed in the sector, so it is huge, and it is expanding. Most of the technology that has been utilised, especially by American companies, has come from Great Britain—even in the early stages of space exploration—so we have a lot to offer. We are taking a huge leap into the future by putting this Bill forward. Over the next few years, the equivalent of £1 billion will go into these projects, and that will be welcomed by the space industry.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for letting me speak in the debate. I urge that the Bill go forward in the best way it can and that Members on both sides vote for it.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who is the chairman of the parliamentary space committee.
When I listened to the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who said that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) had tiptoed into the debate, I realised that I was about to do exactly what the Bill is not intended to do, which is to crash into the debate. There are moments when I think I know a little about transport, but listening to the erudite, learned and extensive speeches so far, I realise that I know almost nothing about the sector. However, I want to make three very basic points, if I may.
When doing some thinking about what I should say tonight, I looked at the industrial strategy. Its strapline is: “Building a Britain…for the future”. That is exactly what this Bill is all about, and that is why it deserves our support.
Quite rightly, there have been a lot of comments from Members tonight about the size and growth of the sector. Quite rightly, in his opening remarks the Minister set out the Government’s ambition that the UK should be at the forefront of the opportunities that arise from this technology, and our excellence in the small satellite market. Overall, however, the key thing is that not only the Government but the private sector will invest in this industry. Therefore, if we want to see that investment, it is key that certain things happen. One is that the Government are in favour of it and create the right environment for businesses to succeed. Part of that is about putting in place the legal certainty for investment, as mentioned previously.
Whichever way we look at the current regulatory environment, it is in need of updating, so the Bill is particularly appropriate. That brings me to my first substantive point, which is that many people in the House will know that, in fast-developing technologies and industries—particularly across the transport and infrastructure sector—not only is the regulatory environment lagging, as it is currently in the space sector, but the Government make no attempt to bring it up to date or to set in place a framework that will anticipate developments. One of the great advantages of this Bill is not just that it sets out a regulatory framework, but that it sets out one that is likely to future-proof the industry’s development over the next few years. I commend that thinking because, in so many other areas of infrastructure and technology, we have seen regulatory environments that frustrate future development.
From my quite cursory look at the Bill, it seems that there are a couple of issues that the Minister will particularly want to look at. I should start by saying that I particularly commend clause 1(4), which makes the point I have just been making. Normally, Back Benchers say to Ministers, “The last thing we want is for sweeping and inclusive powers to be given to Ministers”, but that is what we need in this sector. We need forward thinking and examples that can future-proof regulation. The demand for small satellites, the expansion of markets, the technology and global competition mean we need a relatively free and loose regulatory environment that can anticipate developments—within the context, of course, of ensuring safety and room for development. That said, there are issues with clause 1 that the Minister will want to explore later: for instance, some of the language, particularly some of the geographic restrictions, might prove to contain rather than allow development.
I also want to guide the Minister towards clause 8. There are two things there on which he will want to reassure the House if he really does want a forward-thinking regulatory environment and development in the sector. The phrase
“contrary to the national interest”
could easily be defined where an activity threatens either security or legal aspects, but he will want to ensure that activities are not regulated on the basis of prejudice. If one were to follow previous regulatory systems, there could be a whole proliferation of opportunities, in the area of economics, caught by the phrase. It must not stifle development.
The Minister will also want to reassure the House about the phrase in clause 8:
“the applicant has the financial and technical resources”
to undertake activities. The applicant should, of course, be able to fund its activities and must ensure that it is technically competent in this area, and it must ensure it has the right liability insurance and all aspects of safety in place, but—if I may guide the Minister to other regulatory systems, particularly in the financial services world—such statements elsewhere can be used to stifle small firms and initiative and prevent smaller companies from competing against larger companies. That sort of phraseology is often used to put in place relatively superfluous information requirements that prove to be overly exacting. I ask him to think carefully about that phrase when regulations are made so that his ambition and, I am sure, the whole House’s ambition—that the industry might thrive and opportunities be made available to firms both large and small—might be achieved.
Secondly, many colleagues have spoken about the marvellous opportunities in their constituencies, and it would be foolish of me not to take the same opportunity. Many would perceive Wimbledon as a leafy suburb in south-west London, which indeed it is, but I also like to think of it as tech suburb. Our small high-tech and biotech companies exemplify what is true of the opportunities in the Bill for all Members and their constituencies. Members might not have the space for a spaceport, but they will have the opportunity to bring forward and sponsor the inspiration that space brings to many and to create opportunities in the supply chain. That is what I will be doing in my constituency.
Many concentrate on spaceports and the large companies, but one forgets the opportunities for the small high-tech firms that will arise from the expansion of the satellite market and sub-orbital spaceflight. It is incumbent on us to ensure plenty of opportunities for the supply chain and small companies and to ensure that the skills required are given the appropriate boost. In the latter part of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) talked about skills. It is clear that a greater emphasis needs to be placed, both at secondary school and university level, on the skills that will allow industries such as the space industry to develop.
Finally, as I have mentioned extensively already, it is often the smaller firms that produce the ideas that enable big leaps forward such as those we expect in the space sector. It is often those accelerator institutions that push the technology forward. I hope that the Minister and the Treasury will have due regard to ensuring that those institutions can prosper and succeed so that the developments in technology, some of which we cannot anticipate, can come forward and so that sub-orbital spaceflight and space activities can succeed in the future. The Bill will future-proof the regulatory environment and could make a significant difference to investment and innovation in transport over the next decade.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I am pleased to see that in the Bill the Government are continuing to take the necessary steps to make this country a world leader in burgeoning industries. They have a great track record on getting Britain to the front of the race when it comes to science and technology, and the Bill maintains that record. Companies such as Virgin Galactic, SpaceX and Boeing are drawing closer and closer to running manned commercial spaceflights, which reportedly could start as early as this year. The industry has the potential to go far—in more ways than one—and Britain should be at the forefront of it. With our world-class universities, business-friendly environment and infrastructure, we have the capacity to become a world leader in this industry.
I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) to add his voice to the case for a spaceport at Prestwick, but I will say as an MP from the west of Scotland, in anticipation of his remarks, that I associate myself wholly with them, and indeed those of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). I should also point to the strong industry presence in Glasgow. Companies such as Clyde Space and Spire, with which some of my constituents are involved, are innovating at a remarkable pace, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) mentioned earlier.
The commercial space industry, should we seize the opportunities it presents, could bring billions of pounds a year into the UK economy, and the Government are right to set the ambitious target of occupying 10% of the entire global sector. To achieve this, however, we need the right laws and regulations, and right now our laws and regulations are not ready. The current set-up dates from a time when commercial space travel was a laughable, virtually inconceivable idea, other than on television. On the eve of the advent of commercial space travel, our current legal and regulatory frameworks are just not fit for purpose. As there are no detailed international or EU regulations to adopt or copy into domestic law, it is our responsibility to make them. Indeed, it could be to our advantage to make them: Britain can and should be among the first, not the last, to institute proper regulations for the commercial space industry so that we can start benefiting from it as soon as possible, and as much as possible.
That is why the Bill is necessary. It will put in place the regulations we need to ensure that, when it develops in the coming years, the commercial space industry thrives in a safe and orderly manner. It will ensure, for instance, that a licence is needed for sub-orbital spaceflight activity, just as it is for flying an ordinary plane or driving a car. Likewise, it will provide for regulations relating to the area where spaceflight takes place in order to ensure that spaceflight is conducted safely. It will allow for the establishment of a whole raft of necessary safety and security regulations—regulations that will become more and more important as the industry grows. By giving effect to new offences such as hijacking, destroying, damaging or endangering a UK-launched spacecraft, it will ensure that nobody is put at risk. In recent years, we have rightly become scrupulous about regulating conventional air travel to ensure that people can fly as safely as possible and that people on the ground are as safe as possible from aircraft. It should go without saying that we must take the same careful approach to commercial space travel. The Bill will allow us to do so.
Bob Stewart
One problem is that there are 500,000 pieces of space junk running around, sometimes at very high speeds. My point is that we do not just need to regulate in this country; we need international regulations for how we approach space. For example, in 1996 the French satellite Cerise was destroyed by space junk from an Ariane rocket. We do not just require domestic legislation; we need to fit it into international legislation.
Paul Masterton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Space will be an international issue, and countries throughout the globe will seek to take advantage of the future opportunities. However, as he says, if we do not work together on an international basis, there may be trouble ahead.
In this quickly developing and highly technical industry, it is especially important to be flexible in how we regulate and how we amend regulations. What is right in one year could prove to be either irrelevant or imperfect in the next. We should avoid scenarios in which we make amending regulations a difficult or long-winded process. Circumstances are likely to change, and changes in the regulations are likely to have to happen. We should be able to deal with them smoothly rather than awkwardly.
The Bill represents a positive step by a Government who are clearly not content to limit their vision to “global Britain”. Space presents us with an enormous opportunity in the coming years and decades, and, with manned commercial spaceflights possibly just months away, now is exactly the right time to pass this necessary legislation and pave the way for “interplanetary Britain”. That may sound a bit glib, but, as many other Members have pointed out, the Bill is about something quite special. It has the potential to help reshape the ambitions and broaden the horizons of young people throughout the country, so that being an astronaut may be transformed from a momentary childhood dream to a tangible possibility. It could bring about a whole new scope for involvement in technology, causing a new generation of women, in particular, to become excited about science, technology, engineering and mathematics. It really could constitute a step change.
My constituent Emily Clark attends Strathclyde University. Along with about 100 other students, she gained a place in the university’s space school—which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West—where they were visited by NASA astronauts and scientists. She was one of only 10 who were then chosen to visit NASA in Houston. We exchanged correspondence, and her excitement and joy about her experience flew off the page. She told me all about meeting astronauts including Fred Haise from Apollo 13, and about her VIP tour of mission control and building 9, which is where the mock-up of the international space station and the moon rover are kept. Now Emily is off to become a vet, but she said that her experience had changed her life ambition ever so slightly. She said that her interest in space exploration simply as a Trekkie had developed, and she thought that she might like to be Britain’s own Richard Linnehan. I suspect that most people do not know who Richard Linnehan is, but he is actually NASA’s space veterinarian.
For me, the Bill is not just about rules and regulations. It is about putting the UK at the forefront of space exploration, making it an industry in which we lead, and, in doing so, open up new jobs and new possibilities for future generations. I am delighted to support it this evening.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I shall speak briefly in support of the Bill.
In my constituency, we talk about space far more than people might think. That is not because there is a lot of it in the open fenland and marsh country, but because, as one might expect, we talk about foreign aid an awful lot, and the question that always arises is why we give money to certain countries. They have space programmes. That is, in a sense, the definition of a country that is a thriving great nation: an economy that is looking to the future and does not need the help of others to thrive and travel to infinity and beyond—to the final frontier. I think the very existence of the Bill demonstrates that Britain today is a nation that looks forward to the future with confidence. This is not just empty rhetoric; it is something that the Government are doing in real detail.
Before the general election, I was privileged to serve on the Science and Technology Committee. We had a quick look at what was then a draft Bill; there was a limited amount of time for the full parliamentary process because of the impending election. We made a number of recommendations, most of which were prefaced by a declaration of our support for the Bill, for two reasons.
First, there is the huge economic potential that a thriving space industry brings to the country as a whole. We talk about artificial intelligence as an issue that will bring broad and widespread benefits throughout the growing new economy in this country, but we do not talk about space in the same way. It is a cliché to say that Teflon, which is now ubiquitous in every kitchen, was invented because of the American space programme. We should think of the forthcoming space industry in the United Kingdom in the same way. The Bill represents the beginning of a huge new economic element that will have huge tangential benefits, whether they are CubeSats or the satellites that will power a host of other industries. The point that the Committee sought to make at almost every opportunity was that the Bill was not simply about bringing the benefits of a spaceport to Newquay or Prestwick—or possibly to both areas, and to many more. Indeed, there is space in Lincolnshire, although it is very good agricultural land, so it would be a difficult decision to make.
There is not just the question of where we should put the individual assets that will be crucial to the development of an industry, but the vital question of how we should be trying to foster the benefits of an economy that is wrapped up in new technologies so that they can be extended beyond the technology that gets CubeSats up into space, and the research that will ensure that we do not end up with a space industry that pushes debris out into the ether, treating space as previous generations have treated parts of China, where we offloaded our own waste pretending that we could ignore the consequences for the planet. We must be mindful of what is going on, not only on this planet but beyond it, and I think that the Bill does that to some extent. We must begin to think of ourselves not only as global citizens, but as intergalactic citizens. We must consider the consequences of what we do as a human race, not only beyond our country’s shores but beyond our atmosphere. That is what real global responsibility looks like.
The Committee’s recommendations constitute an attempt to be genuinely mindful of the regulations that we need for an industry whose full scale does not yet exist. One of our aims was to come up with principles that would not be overtaken by events. For instance, we discussed drafting a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies that we expect to regulate the two principal types of spaceflight. I was pleased that the Government accepted a number of our recommendations, but the point of that particular recommendation was not that we thought it sensible to come up with hard and fast rules that should never be broken—as the Bill proposed at that point—but that we were asking the Government to be cognisant of the fact that the rules that we needed could not be made immediately. I think that the Bill tries to strike a balance between setting those valuable principles and identifying the baselines that will not allow us to imagine that it is sensible to clutter up the outer atmosphere with bits of kit that will be of little value in years to come.
What I must praise about the Government’s approach to the Bill is that they sought to involve the industry, and sought to involve Select Committees. They also sought to make sure that we did not simply have a single principle that was so broad that it was almost meaningless —that we would also have principles embodied in legislation that were broad enough to allow industries to grow and flourish and did not constrain them too much.
I, like other Members across this House, support this Bill, but I do so specifically because it does not embody every single regulation in statute; it looks optimistically to the future and acknowledges that not only is this the industry that will in the first instance take affluent tourists a long way from home, or people very quickly from one part of the country or the world to another, but that it will foster an entire new industry that can be plugged into our existing economy and will bring many benefits that go way beyond the invention simply of technologies such as Teflon—although I hope this Bill has all the material benefits of Teflon and we do not allow ourselves to get stuck on the details and instead stick, in a non-stick Teflon kind of way, to the beautiful principles that will allow us to see more of space in the future. I am glad to support the Bill this evening.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
As a lifelong devotee of “Star Trek” and an avowed Trekkie, I cannot communicate how delighted I am to speak in this debate. Growing up, I always imagined that by 2018 the United Kingdom would already have a well-established, even thriving, space industry, with regular trips to the moon, Mars, or even galaxies “far, far away.” Sadly, that is not the case and in the absence of Starfleet I have had to join the next best positive forward-looking organisation: the Conservative party. To have the opportunity to help make it so here tonight is very exciting for me and, I believe, for the entire United Kingdom.
It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone that I rise to speak in support of the Space Industry Bill. The Bill aims to establish a new regulatory framework for UK-based spaceflight activities, including the operation of UK-based spaceports and the launch of new space vehicles.
The UK space industry already impacts on many sectors of the United Kingdom’s economy, services and even everyday life. From weather reporting to, as has been said, satellite navigation, telecommunications and financial services, our space industry has positively impacted on all walks of life. In 2016 an assessment by London Economics to the UK Space Agency estimated that over £250 billion, or 13.8%, of non-financial UK industrial activities were supported by satellite services. More specifically, as recently as 2015, income from the UK space industry was estimated at £13.7 billion, the equivalent of 6.5% of the global space economy. With the ever-decreasing cost of small satellites and launches enabling increased usage of satellites, the already substantial economic impact of the UK space industry is only going to increase further.
Even as we speak, a number of potential spaceports and launch companies are developing plans to offer UK launch services, but they currently have no legal framework within which to plan future operations. With the Government aiming to grow the UK space industry to an annual turnover of £19 billion by 2020, and for it to be 10% of the global space market by 2030, the Space Industry Bill represents an opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.
Moving on to the contents of the Bill, as things currently stand neither international aviation law nor space law are suitable for commercial spaceflight in the UK, thus impeding the UK space industry’s development. Indeed, following its review of UK commercial spaceplane operations in 2014, the Civil Aviation Authority recommended that the regulations for spaceflight activities be updated. Therefore, legislation is required to put in place this enabling regulatory framework.
The Bill seeks to address three areas of policy: the promotion of the UK space industry; ensuring the safety of all space-related activities; and ensuring the UK’s international obligations are reflected in UK law. Towards these three objectives, the Bill proposes seven areas of legislative framework, which the Minister outlined earlier.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend is about to describe frameworks that apply to the whole of the UK, and what lies ahead of us over the next two days is an outstanding example of why we often need UK frameworks.
Luke Graham
I could not agree more; frameworks are very important. As outlined in “Star Trek”, the Federation represents a united principle with very little nationalism present, and I hope that is the future we will all strive for this evening.
There is nothing in essence with which I disagree in this Bill, which is why I support its principles. However, that does not mean that there is not more that can be done. Pre-legislative scrutiny by the Science and Technology Committee, which largely welcomed the draft Bill, highlighted some areas in which the Government could provide more policy detail, particularly environmental protections, delegated powers and the licensing and insurance provisions in the Bill. It also recommended an updated impact assessment, as the previous assessment had not been updated since the Government decided to legislate for spaceflight separately in the modern transport Bill.
I shall therefore highlight two areas of concern which I would like to see addressed, and which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to; I hope the Minister will respond to the concerns raised in summing up. I note that the Government consider that existing environmental and planning laws provide sufficient protections, but that they were considering adding an amendment which would require licence applicants to submit a noise and emissions assessment during the licence application process. I ask for the amendment to be introduced and to address specifically the environmental concerns raised by the Committee and in this House, so that our national environment can continue to develop, live and prosper for many years to come.
The second area of concern is the lack of a liability cap, and I urge the Government to introduce one. This would bring our space industry into line with those of Australia, France and the USA, which, of course, is the world space industry leader. The purpose of the liability caps in clauses 33(5) and 11(2) is to allow spaceflight operators to obtain affordable insurance. Without it, the prohibitive cost of obtaining insurance for unlimited liability would undermine the growth of the space industry in the UK, which, for me, is the key point of this Bill.
I accept that there is a need for flexibility within the legislation to allow for future technological advancements and changes to the international legal landscape. None the less, I believe there is still scope for some middle ground to be found between the Bill in its current state and increased clarity around the issues I have raised, while still allowing for the flexibility which is required. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the concerns raised by industry and the Committee, and the clauses I have highlighted for further consideration.
I would like to make one final point: with no existing spaceport or launch site in the UK, there is a glaring gap in the UK space industry market. However, this Bill provides an opportunity for Scotland, which is well placed to support, and benefit from, the growth in the UK space industry. Scotland has a strong heritage in the space sector. Companies such as Clyde Space and Spire have helped Scotland to become a hub of space activity, with Glasgow building more satellites in the last two years than any other city in Europe. Furthermore, future space innovations are being created by institutions such as the national Astronomy Technology Centre in Edinburgh and Strathclyde University, while it should be noted that Scotland’s geography is well suited to a number of different launch operations including vertical-launched rockets. The potential to launch satellites from traditional rockets has seen organisations across Scotland develop business cases for spaceports in their regions.
As a proud constituency MP, I highlight the burgeoning aerospace industry in the Kinross-shire area of Ochil and South Perthshire, which I also hope will benefit from investment through the upcoming Tay Cities Deal, making it ripe to maximise the future benefits we hope will come from this Bill.
This Bill is vital to establish the foundation for the British space industry. We have an opportunity to capitalise on our technological edge, leveraging investment from our financial powerhouses in London and Edinburgh to fund companies and infrastructure to bring the UK truly into the space age.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is my privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham). My early connection with space was before his, and it came from the Eagle comic’s characters such as Flash Gordon and Dan Dare, who are probably known only to a few here in the Chamber today. It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Bill this evening. It will pave the way for the next steps in British innovation and engineering. The UK space industry is already thriving, as we have heard. It is worth somewhere in the region of £14 billion and directly contributes more than £5 billion to this country’s economic output. It supports a staggering 40,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom, and I was delighted to learn that our space sector accounts for around 6.5% of the global space economy.
This success is the perfect launch pad for our ambitions. It has long been the UK Government’s goal to become one of the leading players in, and indeed out of, the world when it comes to the space industry. That is why I was delighted to see such strong support for the aerospace industry in the Government’s recent industrial strategy White Paper. The aerospace growth partnership, the collaboration between the Government and industry, is rightly focused on growing the UK’s aerospace capabilities, of which there are many. It instils the confidence necessary for future investment. We have already seen almost £4 billion committed to the industry between now and 2026, and I am sure that it will attract significantly more finance.
The passage of the Bill on to the statute book cannot come soon enough. The aerospace industry is currently regulated by, strangely enough, the Outer Space Act 1986, which was passed more than 30 years ago by a progressive and thoughtful Conservative Government. We are doing a similar thing today. In 1986, spaceports and commercial space journeys were the stuff of science fiction, not of legislation. If we are to take our position as a global leader in space technologies, as I am sure we will, we must ensure that the regulations are fit for now and for the future. Under the current regulations, for example, the development of spaceports in the UK is restricted, and the only licences that have been granted were for launches outwith the UK. The current system is also woefully lacking when it comes to the safety and security of spacecraft, of space infrastructure and of the people involved in the industry. International and EU rules simply have not been able to keep pace, and there is no detailed regulation in this area.
The Bill will establish a new regulatory framework and allow us to close some of the gaps. The Science and Technology Committee, of which I am now a member, undertook an assessment of the Bill. That was before my time in the House, but I was delighted to note that the Committee gave its broad support to the Bill and also heard from several representatives of the space industry. Organisations such as the Royal Aeronautical Society and companies such as Virgin Galactic and Airbus welcomed the Bill and the positive impact that it will have on the UK space sector.
The Bill will allow for the operation of UK-based spaceports. This is extremely important for Ayrshire—and, I am sure, for Cornwall—where we are proud to be the home of the Prestwick international aerospace park, located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), which neighbours my own. Glasgow is fortunate to be a close neighbour to Ayrshire. As has been mentioned, Glasgow is a European centre of excellence for the construction and assembly of high-tech satellites, so there is a good partnership there.
Prestwick aerospace park is home to more than 3,000 employees and some of the UK’s largest aerospace companies, such as BAE Systems and Spirit AeroSystems, to name but two. It is Scotland’s only aerospace enterprise area, and it is noted as a centre of innovation and technical excellence in aviation, not only locally and throughout the UK but globally. There are, for example, 8,000 engineering graduates living within a 45-minute commute of Prestwick, including many who live in my own constituency. The airport at Prestwick is currently developing a plan to make it one of the first spaceports in the United Kingdom and Europe. I emphasise the word “first”; we do not mind who comes second. The large site is ideally suited for such a purpose, with a concrete base runway that stretches for almost 3,000 metres. It is one of the largest runways in the United Kingdom.
Luke Graham
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, and Prestwick is a fantastic site. Does he agree that the benefits of locating a spaceport there would encourage wider infrastructure investment, including in high-speed rail, as well as more connectivity and improved investment into Scotland and the north of England? Would it not be great to have a more connected United Kingdom?
Bill Grant
Absolutely. We are well connected by rail and road, but any improvements would be most welcome. We are not an isolated part of the United Kingdom; we are very much connected. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
We also have favourable weather 52 weeks a year, and there are no congestion issues. When we take off to the west, we are across the Firth of Clyde and into the open space of the north Atlantic. If we go east, we find open farmland and we are away across. Prestwick is a wonderful airport, but it could do with more traffic. I am sure that it will get that in time. Success in securing a spaceport operator’s licence will lead to the creation of a further 2,000 jobs and generate an additional £320 million for the UK economy. It will place south Ayrshire—and Ayrshire and the west of Scotland as a whole—at the heart of the global space industry. More importantly, it will attract and retain some of the brightest and best minds in the world to Scotland, UK.
The Bill will benefit Prestwick, as well as other sites with similar ambitions all around the UK. We have heard mention of some of those tonight, and they are quite right to be ambitious, but we are equally ambitious for Prestwick, which is the best site in the United Kingdom. The Bill will allow us to take the next step and bring us closer to operating commercial spaceports. It will unlock untold opportunities and investment into Ayrshire and Scotland, and allow the UK to cement its place as a world leader in space technology. I am delighted to support the Bill’s progress today.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I rise to make a short contribution to the debate, not on the basis of any kind of knowledge or technical insight but simply as an enthusiast. I was unsure whether I, as the Member of Parliament for Stirling, could stand here and speak with any authority about such matters as the European Space Agency, but such is the marvel of the days we live in that I have received a communication while I have been in the Chamber from a constituent, Mr Gordon Honeyman, who tells me that I have a constituent who works for the European Space Agency—it happens to be his wife—so I now feel flush with authority to address these subjects, perhaps with an even greater degree of enthusiasm.
I should like to speak in support of the Bill. I am reliably informed that to achieve escape velocity from the Earth, a vehicle must be travelling at 25,020 mph. That is quite fast. The need for speed in rocketry and space engineering is a well-documented fact. The vast distances of space and the physics of gravity make such speed a requirement.
Carol Monaghan
That escape velocity applies if the vehicle is pinged from the surface of the Earth and no further propulsion is used. Actually, if we could continually move upwards at 1 metre per second, we would eventually get into space.
Stephen Kerr
I am the better for that intervention, but I am now worried about what else I will say. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Lady, who is a physics teacher, is in the Chamber today to provide that illuminating insight. I hope that we can agree that 25,020 mph is very fast, but such speeds are difficult for us to assess with our 70 mph motorways, which make it difficult to imagine a speed 357 times faster. Even the HS2 line, operating at 250 mph, pales into insignificance. I am obviously deploying parliamentary understatement when I say that we are dealing with something out of the ordinary as a means of transport.
It is the need for speed that necessitates this Bill, not in the physical sense that I have been discussing, but in the legislative sense. Prescriptive legislation that annotates all aspects of regulation is doomed to fail in the fast-moving and changing world in which we live, especially in this fast-moving industry. I made similar comments about the need to move quickly to keep up with the times in the context of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill and data protection legislation.
Dr Whitford
I totally accept the point that we need flexibility to keep up with innovation, but do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues recognise that the industry is anxious because it cannot see draft regulations a mere two years before the Government would like to see launches?
Stephen Kerr
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree. It is important to establish a framework in which policy is laid out so that, as mentioned in her excellent speech, investors can have some view of the future and there can be certainty for investment decisions. Going back to what I was saying about the other Bills, it is important that legislation keeps up with the rate of change, and technological change in particular.
Several Members have mentioned the vital importance of spaceports and their location and the opportunity for this country to have satellite launch facilities within its borders instead of sending satellites abroad, and that issue has been well discussed throughout the debate. It is frequently pointed that the United Kingdom has some attractive geographic advantages when it comes to launch facilities. If someone is intent on launching satellites into polar orbit, launching them over an ocean at a good angle is what they are looking for, and Scotland has a good number of ideal locations for vertically launching satellites into polar orbit.
A space race is going on, but it is not the same as the space race of the past; this race is about establishing new spaceports. The competition is not just between locations in the United Kingdom—I totally subscribe to the view that there should be as many spaceports as demand requires—but between the United Kingdom and other northern European countries. This Bill allows the possibility of the UK getting into this game early, getting head and staying ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear me say that Scotland is indeed the ideal location for spaceports, and its candidate locations are competing to become Britain’s first spaceport. In a really good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spelled out the advantages of Prestwick, as did the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), and one of the attractive features of the Prestwick proposal, apart from the geographic and meteorological advantages, is the community and cross-party unity on the matter. I cannot think of a more inspirational happening for the young people of the west of Scotland than the announcement of the building of a spaceport in Ayrshire—right on the doorstep of the vast majority of Scotland’s population.
I belong to the generation where the word space immediately conjures up the three-word phrase “the final frontier”, which has been referred to several times, but we are talking about something far more real than the science fiction and television series of my boyhood. As an eight-year-old boy in 1969, I remember watching in wonder at the flickering black and white images on our family television as the astronauts of Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin—names that will live forever in the history of mankind—stepped out of the lunar module and on to the lunar surface, famously taking that
“one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”
It was an exciting time and the possibilities of space exploration seemed limitless, and every young mind in the country was seized with the excitement of that possibility.
Sadly, before I had even reached my first year at secondary school, manned flight to the moon, which was such an exciting prospect, had lost the attention of the vast majority of people. It is sad to say that the only time in recent memory that the British public really embraced, in a popular way, the concept of space exploration was Christmas day 2003, when Colin Pillinger and his team attempted to land Beagle 2 on the surface of Mars, as I am sure we all remember. Perhaps in the best traditions of noble first endeavours, it did not quite come off. Colin sadly passed away without knowing that he had come very near to achieving the objective of the mission.
I am most excited about this Bill, this subject matter and what it does to fire the imaginations of our young people.
Luke Graham
My hon. Friend refers to the moon landings in the 1960s. It was a small step for a man, but does he agree that this Bill is a chance to invigorate everyone in our country and to show how much they can contribute not only to the future economy but to the future development of the entire globe?
Stephen Kerr
Absolutely. This is about firing the imagination of all of us to the possibilities of space exploration.
I am mindful of the time, so I will press on. The fact is that we need this legislation, because without it we would create real risks for people. We have discussed the economic risk, but there is also the physical risk of injury. The risks of unlicensed or unregulated space activity happening in the skies above us are real. It is essential that we ensure the UK has a licensing regime that enables innovation and entrepreneurship but prohibits high-risk ventures that could do real damage.
With this Bill we are protecting not only the life and limb of our citizens but the communications and forecasting equipment that keep our country moving. There is no real difference between a major motorway that moves people around the country and a satellite that connects two different parts of a business with a high-speed link—they both need protection to ensure that we have functioning national infrastructure. The Bill envisages an uncomplicated process for doing that by allowing for schemes and ideas to be given an indicative rating as to whether they can be licensed simply, thereby allowing everyday activities to proceed quickly, or whether there is a need to alter the programme or plan. The way that will change and update with changes in technology means that what is a high-risk madcap stunt today becomes standard operating procedure tomorrow. We need a framework to allow for such change.
As I mentioned earlier, let us not forget the inspirational and uplifting elements of space travel, and we have heard quite a few references to space tourism and the possibilities it might bring. These are inspiring technologies, not only from the point of view of seeing a large rocket blast off into space but from the results and benefits we will get from such launches. Space radar that penetrates the atmosphere to scan the surface of Earth in huge detail, photographic data at different wavelengths that can tell how healthy crops are and satellites that connect communities around the world are all part of a picture that shows what humanity can do when it puts its mind to something.
We need to travel at great speed to escape the legislative atrophy that often grips us as a nation. We cannot rely on 18th-century legislative engineering to support 21st-century endeavour. We must allow our entrepreneurs and business people not only to see the sky as the limit but to look beyond even that. Our job is to give them the frameworks and the ability to do so, unconstrained by the surly bonds of outdated regulation.
I urge the House to support the Bill.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to be the last Back Bencher to be called to speak tonight on this enormously exciting part of our economy. The space industry is the fastest growing part of our economy, and it is key to jobs and growth. The sector has trebled in the UK since 2010, and the global industry is set to more than double. The jobs are high skilled, high value and highly productive, and that is not all. Investing in space boosts productivity, increases exports and ignites passion for science and technology. In this the Year of Engineering and the centenary of women first getting the vote, exciting that passion for engineering, especially among women, is key.
I remember that the science wall at school had a picture of the Earth, Archimedes and a lever, and the quote said, “Give me a lever and a place to stand and I will move the Earth.” I contest that the satellites we have put up into space give us the ability to understand the movements in and on our Earth like never before. It is key that this is looking not only out to space, but at what is happening on our planet. This technology is changing all the time. I am a bit of a geek and just before Christmas I went to the annual meeting of the quantum technologies group. In my constituency, the company Teledyne e2v has invented a little box containing a gravity sensor which will go up in a satellite and from there, using quantum technology, will be able to understand what is happening inside and underneath the shell of our planet. We will be detecting earthquakes, understanding geology like never before and seeing what is happening in the heart of a volcano. This is not just cool—this is super cool; this is absolute zero being developed in Britain, in Chelmsford, for the future of our planet—it is great.
It is important that we think about not only the future of great big satellites, but about the development of the smaller satellites, the downstream applications and the state-of-the-art technology. In my previous job, I worked a lot with the European Space Agency. We have paid for the Galileo and Copernicus satellites, and we must make sure that British businesses benefit from being able to take part in the downstream applications and work on the data that we have. Space assets are also key to our modern communications, especially in security, but the UK is the only G7 economy that does not have its own Earth imagery assets. So it is important that we can continue to share data with other nations of the world.
We in Britain have a reputation for high-quality engineering. Another part of my local company Teledyne e2v is working in Leeds, where it is making the highlyengineered filters, switches and converters that are critical technology for the OneWeb group of satellites. If something goes wrong once we have set it up in the sky, we cannot bring it down to mend it, so the quality of the engineering is key. This type of small satellite will provide the global network coverage so that we will have internet coverage from space, not just from cables. Being able to launch those small satellites from the UK has great benefits. So I thank the Government for this Bill. Our businesses have carried a lot of business risk in trying to carry out those launches from other parts of the world.
I was delighted when all of the representatives of the British space sector came for a roundtable in Chelmsford to examine this Bill. They are really pleased with it. It is giving a proper legal framework for their development and it is making Britain the go-to destination for investment in the space sector. Yes, there are some issues to address. The unlimited liability regime makes it impossible for insurers to provide coverage. It is not that they do not want to; it is that it is often outside their modus operandi. So let us look again at that. There is also a huge amount of interest in using this Bill to develop a mergers and acquisitions culture and framework, so that once we have put the satellites in the sky, it might be that they can be sold on to other investors. That will mean not only that Britain is the place for investment on Earth for our space sector, but we also become the place to invest for the universe. So I say thank you for the Bill.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
This has been a good debate, with some good and knowledgeable contributions. Members rightly made strong bids for their constituencies as potential candidates for spaceports, and I commend them for that. Given the time allowed, I do not intend to refer to every speech, but it would be remiss if I did not mention at least the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), not least for his collegiate approach to this debate. Generally, as a Minister, his approach worked well. It certainly improved the ability to legislate in this place and I was grateful for that.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said, the Opposition are broadly supportive of this Bill and welcome it. I must pay tribute to our colleagues in the other place, who have successfully secured crucial concessions from the Government that have ensured that this Bill is now in a much better place than it was at the start of its passage through the other place.
It is, though, a skeleton Bill, and the detail is not ready. It has only 71 clauses, yet it provides for 100 delegated powers. We accept that it is not possible to provide all the necessary regulations in primary legislation, but the Government could perhaps have dealt with some of the industry’s concerns. This is yet another example of the Government introducing skeleton legislation while they flail around on Brexit.
The Opposition intend to support the Bill, but we may in Committee need to table amendments on issues on which we have concerns, one of which is the delegated powers that the Bill will give to the Secretary of State. That was one of the matters on which our colleagues in the other place forced the Government to back down, thereby removing the Henry VIII powers. Nevertheless, the catch-all regulation-making power could weaken judicial oversight and may render other delegated powers less meaningful, so we may need to revisit it in Committee.
As the Bill stands, clause 2 limits the environmental objectives that must be considered to those set by the Secretary of State. We intend to probe the Government on that in Committee. There is still a worry that the powers set out in clauses 38 and 40, which deal with powers in relation to land use, may encroach on devolved planning powers. We may need to make reference in the Bill to the devolved Administration giving their consent to the use of the powers.
Again as the Bill stands, there is currently a lack of judicial oversight for emergency orders. The Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place have expressed concerns about enforcement authorisation, with the former describing the powers in clause 32 as “wide-ranging and potentially draconian”. We may need to table an amendment in Committee to deal with that.
Industry stakeholders’ main worry with the Bill is the absence of a mandatory liability cap for spaceflight operators—a point made time and again in the debate. We will definitely probe further into this matter in Committee and ask the Government to clarify their position. The Government have given an assurance that a specific regulator—either the Civil Aviation Authority or the UK Space Agency—will act as a single point of accountability for safety on each individual mission. However, there is no detail on how that would work in practice and what the relationship will be with the Health and Safety Executive. That is something else to investigate further in Committee.
The Opposition very much share the Government’s ambition for the UK to be a leading player in the global space industry. To achieve the Government’s aim to grow the UK space industry from its current 6.5% of the global space economy to 10% by 2030, it is important that the industry has a spaceport facility, which is why it is crucial that we get the regulatory framework right.
As I have said already, the Opposition broadly support the Bill, but I hope the Government will work with us to make this legislation the best we can make it, by supporting the very helpful amendments we table in Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a great pleasure to be able to respond to this Second Reading debate. We have heard some wonderful speeches and a wide range of expertise, ranging from my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who spoke of his enthusiasm but downplayed his knowledge, only to display a considerable amount of knowledge, to that bravura turn from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who spoke for what is for him, as the House knows, a mere canapé in the smorgasbord of oratory, a throat-clearing before the tenor really begins, a tiny 18 minutes—one felt that the poor man had barely got into his stride. I, along with my colleagues, pay tribute to him. In his relatively brief remarks, he was able to speak eloquently of the surely temporary interlude that he is planning to spend on the Back Benches of this House. In his poetic tone, he reminded me of Walt Whitman’s poem, his famous centrepiece in “Leaves of Grass”, which is entitled, as the House will know, “Song of Myself”. It includes the famous sentence:
“I am large, I contain multitudes.”
The multitudes raised by my right hon. Friend include President Kennedy and the cast of “Star Trek”. It is fair to say that we all enjoyed what turned out to be a quite wide-ranging tour of his own achievements.
It has been a very positive debate today, and I thank all those who have taken part. I am also grateful to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who opened this debate with such insight into the UK space sector and the opportunities that lie ahead. His continued close involvement in this programme of work and the knowledge and experience that he brings are a great asset to this Bill and to the work going on outside this House to realise spaceflight and its true potential, which was so well spoken of by so many Members across the House today.
Today’s debate has made it clear that this Bill is not politically charged or divisive and its ambition has not prompted serious disagreement or division, but invited reflection. In the best traditions of the House, it is reflection on the achievements of one of this country’s largely unsung success stories, our thriving space industry, and reflection on how best to ensure that this success continues for generations to come. Indeed, in the best tradition of pioneering space missions, this Bill has inspired collaboration, not contest, at all stages of its development and debate, which is a testament to the bold, exciting and important ambition that lies beneath it. We must now honour that ambition with legislation that is fit for purpose in the modern commercial space age—legislation that will make the UK the most attractive destination in Europe to operate a profitable and responsible space business.
As many Members have noted, the UK space industry is not short of ambition. The global launch and servicing of small satellites, of which there may be thousands in the coming years, could exceed £10 billion in revenues over the next decade, with an untapped European regional market potentially worth around one third of that. Nowhere in the world is this market more fully exploited by a sustainable, commercial offering until now.
Bob Stewart
Having run a satellite industry company, for me one of the worries is to do with the amount of launching that we are doing. That is great, but what we have to think about is how to get rid of the junk. There is so much junk up in space now that it is becoming incredibly dangerous. Internationally, we need regulations on how we destroy a satellite when its life is over. It should be brought down rather than left up, and the way to bring it down is to put it into the Pacific graveyard, which already exists. We bring the satellite down, and it either burns up or it goes into a very remote area of the ocean. We must think about that; otherwise, we are producing an environmental catastrophe in space, which is almost there now.
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend speaks for all of us from a great base of experience. Everyone in this House feels that the issue of space debris is a serious one. It is not only a serious one, but one that the Government believe they will be operating in line with international best practice in addressing in the course of the implementation of this Bill.
The UK has a variety of factors that support it in this great ambition, including the right geography and the right environment in which to deliver new launch services. The Government’s industrial strategy, published last year, will continue to help our successful, competitive, open economy to grow.
Finally, we have the right industry ready to support and exploit new launch opportunities. Our pioneering space and aerospace sectors are home to many thriving companies and capabilities, including small satellite technology companies and the most innovative advanced manufacturing capabilities.
Half a century ago, the British rocket programme was considered unviable, but as the last rocket had already been built it was given permission to launch. Prospero, the small satellite it successfully transported into space, was the first and only satellite so far to reach orbit on a British launch. No longer. As Prospero said,
“The hour’s now come;
The very minute bids thee ope thine ear”.
Once more, we can reach for the stars and put an end to that lonely record—not at vast public expense or in a way that depends on the hospitality of others, but in the best spirit of British innovation: by enabling, attracting and empowering commercial markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital flights from UK spaceports. In response to the vigorous pre-competition that has taken place, I should say that there may be more than one spaceport; they may be located in the north of this country and in the south-west. We welcome that open spirit of competition and possibility.
There will be many benefits. Entrepreneurs will benefit from new opportunities to build their enterprises. Local economies will benefit from the creation of spaceport sites with related jobs and opportunities in construction. Our small satellite industry will have direct access to domestic launch capacity. British space scientists will benefit. Young people seeking careers in science and technology, engineering and maths will gain new opportunities and—perhaps even more importantly—greater inspiration from an expanding UK spaceflight industry. How many of my colleagues have picked up on the importance of bringing the best and brightest young and old brains to work! The UK as a whole will benefit from access to a strategic small site launch capability, contributing to our understanding of the world, greater commercial and public services, national security and opportunities for new investment and export.
I could go into many other aspects, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me turn to some of the comments made today. I am grateful for the points made by the Opposition. On issues environmental, the Government are committed to tabling environmental amendments in the Commons at Committee stage, and we look forward to working with the Labour party on that. Many Members mentioned a liability limit. There is no such limit in the Bill, and we expect that crucial point of discussion and debate to be addressed in Committee to the extent that it is necessary. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) sought confirmation that there would be a single point of accountability for each spaceflight, and I can confirm that.
The House has focused on the importance of urgent regulation. As I mentioned, we are currently aiming to lay statutory instruments from summer 2019. That will allow time for more detailed policy development, consultation and drafting. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) asked for reassurance that there would be continued involvement with the European Space Agency post-Brexit. Brexit will, of course, not affect the UK’s membership of that agency at all; it is entirely independent and includes non-EU member states such as Norway and Switzerland. We expect to collaborate closely with it.
Will there be adequate protection? The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) asked for Galileo and Copernicus. The answer is yes. The joint report issued by the negotiating teams was clear in December last year: UK entities will be able to continue to participate in all EU programmes, including those I have just mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) raised concerns that certain terms in clause 8 might be used to constrain the space flight market. As many Members have mentioned, the whole point is that in this case regulation is enabling us and building markets—it is not constraining markets, but creating them. That creative idea lies behind the Bill and the commercial possibilities unleashed by it.
We have talked about inspiration, and about debris. Let me wind up relatively quickly. There will be three main statutory instruments, as I have discussed, covering sub-orbital activity, space activity, and spaceports and range. They will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and they will therefore allow full parliamentary scrutiny and debate. [Interruption.] I am being encouraged by colleagues to mention Wantage.
Jesse Norman
There are other places that one could mention very happily, but Harwell in the constituency of Wantage is particularly close to my right hon. Friend’s heart. Therefore, I mention it with great delight.
Today we are taking forward a Bill that will pave the way for a modern, safe and supportive regulatory framework for small satellite launch and sub-orbital spaceflight from UK spaceports.
Jesse Norman
I can only salute my right hon. Friend’s ambition. Spaceflight will provide new growth and employment opportunities across the UK. This is a fine and important piece of legislation. It has what Tom Wolfe referred to as “The Right Stuff”, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Space Industry Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following shall apply to the provisions of the Space Industry Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 30 January 2018.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (programming sub-committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Space Industry Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Space Industry Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) amounts paid by the Secretary of State by way of indemnity in respect of the liability of holders of licences under the Act for injury or damage,
(2) amounts paid by the Secretary of State under the terms of any insurance or reinsurance made available by the Secretary of State, and
(3) any other expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Space Industry Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Space Industry Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the making of charges in respect of the performance of functions under the Act or the Outer Space Act 1986, and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Space Industry Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 23rd January 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2018 - (23 Jan 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, everyone should ensure that their electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings because they are hot drinks. I also remind Members that they need to declare any relevant interests publicly. They can do that now, if they wish, or when they first rise to speak. Does anyone wish to declare any interests?
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I do not know whether it is relevant or not, but I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on space.
The Chair
Thank you.
Today we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 23 January) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 23 January;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 25 January;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 30 January;
(2) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 12; Schedule 1; Clauses 13 to 17; Schedule 2; Clause 18; Schedule 3; Clauses 19 to 21; Schedule 4; Clause 22; Schedule 5; Clauses 23 to 40; Schedule 6; Clauses 41 and 42; Schedule 7; Clause 43; Schedule 8; Clauses 44 and 45; Schedule 9; Clauses 46 to 59; Schedule 10; Clauses 60 and 61; Schedule 11; Clauses 62 to 66; Schedule 12; Clauses 67 to 71; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 30 January. —(Joseph Johnson.)
The Chair
Therefore the deadline for amendments to be considered at the first two line-by-line sittings has passed. The deadline for amendments to be considered at the third line-by-line sitting is the rise of the House on Thursday.
Ordered,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Joseph Johnson.)
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Today’s selection list is available in the room and on the Bill website. It shows how selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Grouped amendments are generally on the same or a similar issue. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment is called first. Other Members are free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.
At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or press it to a Division. If a Member wishes to press any other amendments or new clause in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. I shall work on the assumption that the Minister wishes the Committee to reach a decision on all tabled Government amendments.
Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debate occurs according to the selection list, and decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects.
I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following debates on relevant amendments. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
The Committee has just agreed a programme motion, which will be reproduced on the amendment paper from tomorrow. The motion sets out the order in which we will consider the Bill.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Duties and supplementary powers of the regulator
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(ea) the effect on the environment and on local communities of activities connected with the operation of spaceflight activities or the operation of a spaceport as licensed under this Act;”
This amendment adds impact on the environment and local community activities to the list of areas the regulator should take into account when exercising functions under this Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 1—Grant of licences: assessments of environmental effects.
Karl Turner
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. The amendment adds impact on the environment and local community activities to the list of areas the regulator should take into account when exercising functions under the Bill.
I am grateful that the Government listened to my colleagues in the other place, tabled new clause 1 and agreed to undertake assessments of environmental effects before the regulator grants certain licenses. I pay tribute to my Front-Bench colleagues in the other place, who did a great deal of work to improve the Bill by persuading the Government to make a number of crucial concessions.
I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I would like to ask the Minister whether he will set out on the record exactly how the proposed operator licensing regime and its regulation powers will work in relation to existing planning laws and processes. Concerns were raised in the other place that the regulator or persons with an operator license will be able to overrule or disregard any existing planning regulations, laws and processes when it comes to potential spaceport or spaceflight operations in the UK.
As I indicated, I am happy to withdraw the amendment if the Minister is prepared to clear up any ambiguity surrounding existing planning procedures and the development the UK’s space industry. I hope he listens not only to the concerns that we raise in Committee but to the expert contributions in the other place.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this important Bill, Mr Bone. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to Members in the other place for the collegiate and helpful way in which they developed the Bill into its current state.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about environmental protection and the impact on local communities of spaceflight activities and the operation of spaceports under the Bill. As he said, similar issues were raised in the other place. Following constructive debates in the other place on environmental issues, the Government reviewed the compatibility of the existing planning and environmental framework with spaceflight activities. During that review, certain situations were identified where the existing framework may not provide the environmental protection that we all wish to be required of spaceflight activities. Discussions have since taken place across Government to address that potential gap, resulting in the tabling of Government new clause 1.
New clause 1 will place a mandatory requirement on an applicant for either a launch or a spaceport licence to submit an assessment of the environmental effects of their proposed activity as a precondition of receiving a licence. That duty will ensure that appropriate assessments of environmental effects are conducted by the operator or spaceport licensee and considered by the regulator prior to the determination of an application for a licence.
As hon. Members are aware, there is already a comprehensive body of environmental and planning legislation with which spaceports and spaceflight operators will need to comply, independently of the requirements in the Bill. As such, the new clause seeks to ensure that appropriate assessments are undertaken without placing a disproportionate burden on applicants. To achieve that, it allows for existing equivalent environmental assessments to be considered where appropriate. That will be the case only where the regulator is satisfied that there has been no material change of circumstance since the previous assessment was prepared.
I hope I have reassured hon. Members of the Government’s intention to ensure that spaceport and operator licences are granted only following a robust assessment of the environmental effects of the activities those licences permit. New clause 1 goes even further than the hon. Gentleman’s amendment 13. It adds to the duty on the regulator in clause 2(2)(e) to take into account any environmental objectives set by the Secretary of State, including those set by the Environment Agency.
We also amended schedule 1 in the other place to include an indicative licence condition that, if included in a licence, would require assessments of the impact of noise and emissions from spaceflight activities. I hope in the light of the Government new clause that the Committee will agree that the Bill contains robust environmental protections, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the amendment and the Government’s new clause to strengthen the environmental protections. Those hoping to establish spaceports are still concerned about exactly what is expected of them. It is about trying to get the right balance between protecting the community and allowing spaceports to develop. The sooner the regulations and expectations are clear, the more likely it is that spaceports will go ahead. At the moment, it is hard to expect them to invest if there is still the risk that, at some point, they simply will be ruled out by one of the environmental regulations.
Karl Turner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 3 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Provision of range control services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitford
Again, I welcome any clarification, sooner rather than later, about who is envisaged as providing the range control services. It is clearly stated and welcome that the provider should be independent from those operating the spaceport or the flight. Would it be air traffic control? Who exactly is identified? The problem with the Bill is still that there is a lot of vague gaps that have not been filled in, which is causing anxiety.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question on range controls. Clause 7 requires that range control services must be provided either by the Government or by licensed providers. At present, only one part of the Government—the Ministry of Defence—is able to provide range control services. Range safety for existing military ranges is regulated by the Defence Safety Authority, but our intention is that, for spaceflight, those services will be provided on a commercial basis. Indeed, a driving purpose of the Bill is to enable commercial and not state-sponsored or institutional spaceflight. Since range control services are one of the key mechanisms through which we will protect the public during spaceflight activities, any provider must hold a licence. That will help to ensure the regulator that only fit-and-proper persons can act as a range control service provider. I hope that clarifies the situation.
Dr Whitford
Is the Government’s expectation clear to the companies that are already developing? Are they able to have the security to set up what is, in essence, yet another completely new industry to service the space launch industry?
Joseph Johnson
In our Launch UK programme, we have made it clear that range control is one of the opportunities for which we are seeking interest from industry. To that extent, the private sector is aware that this is one of the big opportunities that the Bill will enable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Grant of operator licences: safety
Karl Turner
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 9, page 7, line 37, leave out “to (4)” and insert “and (3)”.
This amendment changes the requirements the regulator must satisfy in order to grant an operator licence to UK Space Port operators.
The amendment is merely a probing amendment, and I do not intend to speak to it for very long. We would like the Government to ensure that the regulator must not grant an application to a potential operator unless it has carried out a thorough risk assessment and meets the prescribed requirements as laid out in the Bill. I would like to press the Minister and seek further details on how the relationship between the Health and Safety Executive and the Civil Aviation Authority or UK Space Agency will work, and how best practices will be shared.
A lengthy debate in the other place highlighted the concerns. I am grateful to the Minister in the other place, who indicated that he would go away and work with officials. Concerns were raised, mainly by my Front-Bench colleagues in the other place and by me in the Commons on Second Reading, about how the Health and Safety Executive will work with the regulators. The Government stated that there would be a memorandum of understanding, but we are still in the dark when it comes to details.
I seek assurances from the Minister that regulators have the expertise and resources necessary to ensure that the general public are kept safe when it comes to the potential development of our space industry. I also reiterate that, so far, we have little detail on how the UK Space Agency and the CAA are going to share best practice. We would be grateful if the Minister could shed any more light on that.
Joseph Johnson
I will certainly attempt to do so. The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of the safety requirements that regulators must take into account when deciding applications for a spaceflight operator licence under clause 9. The Bill makes it clear that safety regulation will be at the heart of the regulation of spaceflight, spaceports and associated activities. Clause 2 sets out the core duties of the regulator and establishes that ensuring the health and safety of the public is the primary duty.
Clause 9 imposes very clear requirements on both the applicant for a spaceflight operator licence and the regulator in deciding that application. Clause 9 requires that applicants for a spaceflight operator licence assess the risks to health and safety posed by the spaceflight activity. Clause 9 makes a necessary differentiation between the assessments carried out for those who voluntarily agreed to participate in spaceflight activities, which would include any crew or other spaceflight participant, and others who are not taking part in any prescribed capacity—the general public. For people taking part in spaceflight activities, details of the risk assessment required under subsection (2) will form a critical part of the informed consent form that clause 16 requires the volunteers to sign before they are allowed to participate in those activities.
The other key aspect to the clause is managing risks to the general public. Even after all steps have been taking to reduce risks to as low as is reasonably practicable, subsection (4)(b) means that the regulator will not issue a licence if the residual risk to public health and safety remains unacceptably high. If amendment 14 were passed, that protection for the general public would be removed, although I understand that, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is a probing amendment.
Subsection (5) enables the making of regulations to make provision about the matters that operators must take into account and other requirements to be met in carrying out risk assessments. Paragraphs (b) and (c) address the risk to public safety, the steps to be taken to ensure that risks are as low as reasonably practicable, and how acceptable levels of risk are to be determined. The regulations will also prescribe the factors that must be taken into account in determining acceptable levels of risk. Subsection (6) enables regulations setting out information that applicants must provide so that the regulator may be satisfied that an applicant has done what it is required to do under the licence.
Dr Whitford
This is one of the key areas in the Bill where spaceport and launch operators do not know what is expected of them. I understand that the Government wish to consult, but the sooner that it is clarified the better. Regulations coming forward two years after Royal Assent—that comes from a comment in the Lords, and would mean the summer of 2020, when the Government had hoped to launch—would throw complete planning blight over the industry. It is not possible to borrow money to develop launch vehicles or a spaceport without any idea what standard has to be reached.
On clause 9(9) and thinking about passengers, one of the industries that will develop is space tourism. Clearly, the public must be protected as far as possible. In the past, those involved in launch or space abilities have been incredibly fit and trained people. For those going as tourists, that will not be the case. It will be important that we carefully lay down what level of health expectation or physical training is required, because we do not want the early years of the industry to be marred by deaths in space.
Joseph Johnson
I will respond to two of the points made by hon. Members. On early visibility of licence requirements, to get the industry feeling confident that it has a clear set of rules to work with, we will continue to engage with it as we develop the detailed regulations to ensure that the legislation facilitates and supports development in the sector and provides operators with the confidence to move forward with their plans. In addition, as has been said, regulators will be holding extensive pre-licensing discussions with potential operators in order for them to provide more detailed guidance.
Karl Turner
I thank the Minister for his response and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Grant of spaceport licence
Karl Turner
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 10, page 8, line 27, leave out ‘satisfied that’.
This amendment ensures that two defined criteria steps are properly defined for granting an application for a space port licence.
The amendment is intended to make the legislation clearer about the regulator not granting an application for a spaceport licence “unless satisfied that”—this is from the Bill—
“the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that risks to public safety arising from the operation of the spaceport are as low as reasonably practicable, and…any prescribed criteria or requirements are met.”
Speaking purely as a lawyer, I thought the legislation would be clearer to remove “satisfied that”, but on reflection that is probably just semantical. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Joseph Johnson
If the amendment has been withdrawn, I would just beg to move that the clause stands part of the Bill.
The Chair
Ah! You are getting a little ahead of yourself, Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Terms of licences
Karl Turner
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 11, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the specified limit they must pay in damages to an uninvolved third party in the event of an accident in operator licences.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 11, page 8, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment places a definite cap on the amount of a licensee’s liability.
Amendment 6, in clause 11, page 9, line 12, at end insert—
“(7) Within 12 months of this Act coming into force the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out plans on what an appropriate maximum limit would be on the amount of the licensee’s liability under subsection (2).”.
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State decides on what level the mandatory cap for the licensee’s liability is.
Karl Turner
The amendment relates to the terms of spaceport and space operator licences. I propose to remove the specified limit that must be paid in damages to an uninvolved third party in the event of an incident in the operator’s licences. Clause 11 concerns the terms that may or must be included in a licence issued under the Bill authorising spaceflight activities, the operation of a spaceport or the provision of a range control services.
Colleagues in the other place were concerned about the particular wording of this section. We have heard that the amount of liability may be capped. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was mentioned on Second Reading in the Commons that a limit of £20 million had been suggested. I would like the Minister to clarify the issue of the cap, and that is why we have re-tabled the amendment. Although I declare an interest as a lawyer, I did not practise personal injury law and this is not my area of expertise. However, it seems to me that £20 million would cover two very serious non-fatal incidents. It would not be anywhere near enough to cover costs such as living costs and other issues that would arise from serious injury.
I want to know from the Minister, if he is prepared to tell me, whether there is a limit on how much the operator or the Government must pay in damages to an uninvolved third party in the event of an incident. It is also not clear who pays if the losses exceed the proposed cap. Are the Government the insurer of last resort? In the unlikely event of a catastrophic incident, would the Government meet the excess above any cap?
We are certainly not opposed to a cap. We just want some clarity on the issue. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could clear up some of these concerns, which were also raised in the other place, where they were very well put.
The Chair
As we will also debate amendments 5 and 6 now, it seems appropriate to have the stand part debate too.
Dr Whitford
My amendment is completely the opposite of the Labour amendment. As things stand, the Government basically take liability for injury and accident and the operator has to indemnify the Government to cover that risk. What we are looking for is a change in subsection (2) from “may” to “must”. The Outer Space Act 1986 makes that clear. At the moment, the liability limit is €60 million, not £20 million. Without some form of cap on the operator’s liability, it is impossible for operators to get insurance. Therefore, they will simply continue to operate outside the UK under the Outer Space Act, somewhere with a limit of €60 million, rather than in the UK with unlimited liability, for which they simply cannot get insurance.
Amendment 6 deals with the level of cap for the kind of launches that are likely to occur from the UK. Further on in the Bill, we would want to have perhaps a per launch cap rather than per satellite, as it is now. With CubeSats and nanosatellites launched in clusters, the liability cap would be absolutely untenable. Consultation is needed. There may be a later reference to launches that could be defined as green or amber, and it may be that different caps are set for that kind of launch as an overall approach. However, there has to be an ultimate limit and that should not be higher than the current €60 million.
The clause mentions the different aspects of launch, and those are the spaceport, the range control and the launch operator, and later there will be the satellite operator. I have tabled an amendment to a later clause to define the liabilities of those groups, with very clear margins, so that there are no gaps that a victim of an accident could fall between.
Joseph Johnson
Clause 11(2) provides a power for a licensee’s liability to indemnify the Government under clause 35 to be capped in an operator licence. Amendment 16 would remove that vital power. Under both this Bill and the Outer Space Act 1986, operators have a liability to indemnify the Government against claims for damage or loss from foreign states and their nationals. That is to ensure that we meet our obligations under the UN space treaties.
However, satellite operators have previously raised concerns that such a liability is a barrier to operating in the space industry. Operators found that the unlimited liability made it difficult to raise finance or to insure against. The Government have therefore responded to those concerns.
The unlimited liability provisions under the Outer Space Act were amended by the Deregulation Act 2012 and since then licences issued under that Act for the procurement of an overseas launch and the in-orbit operation of a satellite benefit from a cap, which is set out in licence conditions.
The UK Space Agency publishes the usual level of cap in its guidance, which currently sets the cap at €60 million for standard missions. Crucially, however, the level is not set by statute, so the cap can be varied depending on the risk of the activity in question. Some activities currently regulated under the Outer Space Act, notably procuring the launch of a space object and the operation of a satellite in orbit taking place from the UK, will be regulated under this Bill in future, and it is the intention to continue to exercise the discretion to cap the liability to indemnify Government in these licences.
Therefore, following Royal Assent of this Bill, amendment 16 would reverse current Government policy and disadvantage satellite operators in the UK. Conversely, amendment 5 seeks to ensure that all operator licences must cap the liability to indemnify the Government under clause 35. Amendment 6 would then go on to ensure that the level of this cap would be set out in a report to Parliament.
I understand clearly that the intent of these amendments is to support operators in the UK and the Government welcome support for that principle, which is why we have included this power in the Bill. However, these amendments are premature. The cap on the indemnity to the Government under the Outer Space Act was based on many years of licensing the procuring of the launch of space objects and of the operation of satellites in orbit. Indeed, it was not put in place until more than 25 years after that Act gained Royal Assent. The costs and benefits of capping liability for those activities were fully considered and were subject to a full consultation with industry. We intend to take a similar approach to considering capping a launch operator’s liability to Government under this Bill, as launch is a new activity in the UK and poses more risks for the UK as a launching state.
As I said on Second Reading, we intend to announce a call for evidence on all issues relating to insurance and liabilities early this year, following Royal Assent. That will allow us to start to assess the appropriateness of a cap for this new and potentially riskier activity, balancing the economic benefits of such activity with the need to protect the taxpayer.
On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will withdraw the amendment.
Karl Turner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitford
I wish to press amendment 5, which would change the wording from “may” to “must”. There is still room to consult on the level of the cap, but the industry requires a Government commitment that there will be a liability cap.
Joseph Johnson
We intend to explore that carefully in the consultation, taking into account the fact that launching in the UK is a riskier activity than procuring the launch overseas. It poses a higher level of risk to the UK taxpayer, and we need to consider it very carefully.
Dr Whitford
I assume the Government recognise that other launching states, such as Australia, France and the US, all have liability caps. If there is no cap, that will simply kill the launch industry dead in this country. I will not push to a vote amendment 6, which would set the cap at a particular level, but the Government should accept the principle that there will be a cap. I would be happy if the Government plan to bring forward such a measure before the third day, but simply to leave the wording as “may” leaves too much doubt.
Amendment proposed: 5, in clause 11, page 8, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”.—(Dr Whitford.)
This amendment places a definite cap on the amount of a licensee’s liability.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Karl Turner
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 12, page 9, line 41, at end insert—
“(ea) must consult the Environment Agency or (as appropriate) the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Natural Resources Wales;
“(eb) must consult any relevant local planning authority;”
This amendment ensures that the devolved Administrations are consulted in regards to respective Environment Agency bodies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 18, in clause 12, page 10, line 4, at end insert—
‘(9) In subsection (6) a “relevant local planning authority” means a local planning authority with jurisdiction over any location which would be significantly affected by the licence application.”
This amendment defines ‘relevant local planning authorities’.
Karl Turner
I will be brief, Mr Bone. The amendments aim to tighten up some of the ambiguous wording in the Bill. They are intended to ensure that if space activities were to be established under any of the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, their respective environment agency bodies would be consulted before any decision was made on granting an operator licence in their jurisdictions. Will the Minister assure us that he will ensure that the regulator will properly consult the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Natural Resources Wales, as well as any relevant local planning authority, before an operator can be granted a UK spaceport licence?
I tabled amendment 18 with the aim of properly defining a “relevant local planning authority”. We believe that the Bill is too vague and have expanded on its wording to ensure that a local planning authority is defined as an
“authority with jurisdiction over any location which would be significantly affected by the licence application”.
I have seen the Minister’s collegiate approach to the Committee and hope that he will note Opposition concerns, and I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment if he addresses the important points I have raised.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
I support the amendments and hope that the Minister can answer some questions. I am speaking with a constituency interest, as Natural Resources Wales is in my constituency. As that constituency borders England, and has a maritime border, issues such as those we are considering are of regular concern to my constituents. A recent example was the building of the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station on the other side of the Bristol channel. Various significant concerns were raised about the granting of licences for the disposal of mud, which is being removed from the Hinkley Point site to the Welsh side of the channel.
I do not want to get into the specifics of that example, but as there is a question of potentially hazardous materials and the potential for cross-border contamination within the UK, I agree that the matters should be the subject of proper consultation with the devolved authorities, given the likely consequences of anything untoward happening.
Dr Whitford
I welcome the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West and I certainly support it, because three of the potential sites are in Scotland, and one is in Wales. However, as we have discussed, the industry could grow and while there is not currently a site in Northern Ireland, there could be in future. It is important that the devolved Governments should be respected and consulted.
The Government introduced new clause 1 on environmental impact right at the start, when we considered clause 2, and it is crucial that they should respect the devolved Governments’ environmental agencies and local planning considerations.
Joseph Johnson
I thank hon. Members for raising important issues on consultation with relevant environmental and planning bodies. The regulator will identify what assessments of environmental effects are appropriate, during the pre-application process. In reviewing those assessments and deciding whether conditions should be attached to a licence, the regulator may wish to have an input from various environmental bodies. However, requiring consultation with the relevant environment agency and local planning authority before deciding what conditions to attach to a licence is not necessary, and may end up being disproportionate.
For example, once the industry has developed, multiple launches may occur under a separate but almost identical licence. In such a case it would be disproportionate for the regulator to have to consult the environment agency and local planning authority for each new licence. It is also worth noting that clause 2 requires the regulator to take into account any environmental objectives set by the Government, which would include any issued by the environment agency.
The existing planning, regulatory and environmental framework will continue to apply, and environmental bodies will have a say, in accordance with their statutory remit, at the relevant stages, such as when planning permission is applied for. I hope that in the light of the Government amendment and the provisions already in the Bill, Members will agree that robust assessments of environmental effects will be conducted and considered prior both to the granting of a licence and to the imposition of conditions under the Bill. I would therefore ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East to withdraw amendment 17.
Dr Whitford
I wonder whether the Government would consider including consultation with these agencies within the environmental impact assessment in clause 2, as amended by new clause 1. The Minister talks about consulting with the Environment Agency but, obviously, in the devolved administrations there are three other environment agencies and they should have their place.
Joseph Johnson
I would not want the Committee to think that we have not been engaging closely with the devolved Administrations in the development of the Bill, because we have, and over a considerable period. We have worked with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at official level to ensure that all the devolved Administrations are content with provisions in the Bill. I have been out in Northern Ireland myself to discuss the opportunities this Bill presents to businesses there.
Karl Turner
While these amendments intend to ensure that the respective environmental bodies would be consulted were space activities to be established in any of the devolved Administrations—Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—I do not think the Government have gone anywhere near far enough on that. On that basis, I want to push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitford
On the matter of informed consent, I highlight the written evidence submitted to us around what will be defined as informed consent and the possible need to explain complex issues and whether there would be potential for exposing technical information, which, under the US’s ITAR—International Traffic in Arms Regulations—agreement, would be a problem. That is not particularly something I want to bring forward, but we have received a written submission on informed consent.
Joseph Johnson
Informed consent is an important part of the Bill. We will be developing detailed regulations on informed consent, including the information that operators must provide to individuals before they sign consent forms.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 22
Security regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I want to ask the Minister a few questions regarding the clause. I apologise if they have been covered already in other parts of the debate.
Clearly, the security of space for our operations is crucial. These activities will be of significant interest to terrorist organisations or others who would wish to cause harm. This is a problem shared not only in this country but across Europe and the world. Currently, we have sensitive information-sharing systems with the Five Eyes countries and our European neighbours. Given the context of Brexit and the absence of guarantees on the existence of a security treaty and so on—these are issues we have covered at great length in the Home Affairs Committee—will the Minister discuss the consideration given to sharing information with our European partners, in particular regarding the safety and security of operations and those who would wish to target them? On the one hand, any new technology or operation could lead us towards a cautious and very secure approach, but there may also be some issues, whether in relation to the cyber or physical aspects of these operations, such as using locations that have not traditionally been used before for civil aviation or other aerospace activities.
We need to take every precaution necessary, particularly with regard to the increasing threat from not only terrorist organisations and non-state actors, but Russia and other countries that would seek to carry out cyber-attacks—North Korea, for example. Many allegations have been made about attacks on other parts of the UK’s infrastructure, including the NHS, and I see no reason why they would not choose to attack such a high-profile area as space activity.
Will the Minister say a little about how we will ensure the most thorough sharing of information? Will he also give us some guarantees? For example, does he believe that a security treaty will be needed with our European neighbours to ensure that data on individuals can be shared adequately enough to deal with those concerns?
Joseph Johnson
National security and the security of spaceports is, indeed, a vital key element of the Bill. The Bill contains measures to secure against unauthorised access to and interference with space craft, spaceports and any associated infrastructure. It also enables the Secretary of State and regulators to take action where necessary in the interests of national security. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the Bill extends existing civil aviation security powers to regulate spaceplanes and spaceports and introduces broadly similar arrangements for operations to launch objects into orbit, but tailors them to the sensitive nature of satellites and reflects the fact that vertical operations will not be manned.
As with aviation security, the Government will work closely with key partners in Europe and around the world to ensure that security remains paramount in the development of the Bill and the industry. We will continue to work with international partners in all appropriate forums to review and, if necessary, to develop and strengthen measures to ensure that transport generally, and in this case the space flight sector, is cyber-secure.
Stephen Doughty
Will the Minister be specific on the importance of having legal agreements in place for the sharing of relevant information on the matter—the importance, for example, of a security treaty of some sort, in particular with our European partners who are not covered by the Five Eyes agreements? Does he agree that that is crucial?
Joseph Johnson
Should we identify a need for additional legislation, the Bill provides us with the power to adopt appropriate regulatory measures and the ability to issue directions, where necessary and proportionate, to specific entities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 23
Spaceport byelaws
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
Will the Minister say a bit about the measures the Government plan to put in place to deal with drones and unmanned aerial vehicles, particularly in relation to their operation around spaceports? There are substantial restrictions on their operation around civil aviation activities in the UK, but a wide range of drones can be commercially purchased and many operators are unaware of the consequences of using them, near to not only airspace but other activities. Will he comment on that, given the particularly sensitive nature of space flight activities and the risk that could be caused by, for example, an incursion into the space around a launch or training activities?
The clause crucially mentions road traffic enactments and the parking of vehicles. We know of terrorist organisations that have attempted to park vehicles near UK airports in the past and it is crucial to retain the physical security around those sites. Given the ability to launch and remotely control drones from great distances, what thought has been given to whether any additional restrictions will be needed or whether the existing regulations for the use of drones will apply in byelaws for space flight operation centres?
Joseph Johnson
The clause enables the Secretary of State to make security-related regulations and to provide guidance on how they may be complied with. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about drones. He might be aware that the Government announced at the end of November that it is their intention to introduce drone legislation in the spring. The Government will be publishing a draft drone Bill, which will look to extend police powers to extend drone misuse and to mandate the use of safety applications in the UK. We will also be looking at an amendment to the air navigation order to introduce legislation and leisure pilot tests. I hope that addresses his concerns.
Stephen Doughty
Is it therefore the Minister’s intention that when that legislation comes forward it will specifically look at, and make it clear that it applies to, operations around spaceports and space activities? Further, will it be made clear that it concerns not only drones, but—although we are not largely talking here about manned space flight—the use of laser pointers and so on, which we know is a regular problem around airports and which might impede the operation of staff working at those sites or perhaps blind technical equipment being used for space launch activities? Will it be clear that the new legislation applies equally to spaceport activities?
Joseph Johnson
The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that we will be introducing draft legislation. Should he detect any shortcoming in its application and should he continue to have concerns about whether the spaceport and spaceflight activity enabled by the Bill would have risks posed to it by drone activity, there will be plenty of opportunities in the development of that legislation for Members to point that out to Government.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
When will the draft legislation come forward? Given that the police have indicated they do not have the resources to investigate crimes such as shop lifting, bike thefts and mobile phone thefts, will it include resources to ensure that the police can adequately deliver those new responsibilities?
Stephen Doughty
Will the draft legislation also identify new resources to ensure that this responsibility of the police, as well as others, can be adequately enforced?
Joseph Johnson
On the timing, we announced at the end of November that we would introduce the draft legislation in the spring. Spring is slightly movable. We are not quite in spring, I would say, in the middle of January. Later this year—later on this spring—we will bring forward that legislation. The hon. Gentleman will obviously want us to get the legislation right. We are working carefully in the Department to ensure that it is fit for purpose and covers all the situations that he has rightly been bringing to the attention of the Committee.
Stephen Doughty
I want to ask the Minister one further question and would appreciate his indulgence. He refers to the enforcement of the byelaws by a constable. Does he expect, for example, that the responsibilities around any spaceport enforcement of byelaws will be down to the local and geographical police constabulary, or does he expect that the responsibility will be undertaken by one of the non-geographical forces, such as British Transport Police or the MOD police or the Civil Nuclear Constabulary?
The only reason I ask is because, as is often the case and as I have experienced in my own constituency, when there are major national sites of interest—for example, I have the National Assembly and some other major locations of national significance in my area—there is a tendency, given the additional security requirements around those locations, sometimes to divert resources from local policing activities.
Given the existing strains on police forces, community policing and so on, I am a little concerned in that we all want those byelaws to be enforced and security to be absolutely maintained. For example, will consideration be given to additional resources for a police force where a spaceport is located and licensed to ensure that it can cope with those responsibilities and carry them out without being diverted from day to day crime fighting and other police activities?
The Chair
Order. The way in which the Committee is being carried out is completely in order. The Opposition are being very kind to the Minister in not interrupting to him while he is speaking, but his inspiration sometimes takes a little bit longer to come—it might be that interventions are easier for the Minister than the way we are doing it. [Interruption.] I see it is now working perfectly well.
Joseph Johnson
I am quite happy either way, Mr Bone.
Clause 27 enables the Secretary of State to issue directions in relation to the security of spaceflight activities and national security. Clause 24 provides for a licensee to request further specific advice from regulators or the Secretary of State about compliance with security requirements of a particular activity, service, site, facility or other matter. The byelaw powers are modelled on airport byelaws, and they would be locally policed and locally resourced.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 24 to 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Power to give directions: international obligations of the UK
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
Significant concern has been expressed about the future participation of the UK in various space industry international obligations, particularly European obligations. Perhaps the Minister could say a little bit about that—I will go on at length here so he can get some inspiration. Perhaps he could also talk about what assessment has been made of the impacts of leaving the European Union on our participation in, for example, Copernicus, Galileo, Egnos, GovSatCom, Iris, and in Space Situational Awareness and Space Surveillance and Tracking.
For those unfamiliar with those, Copernicus deals with earth observation missions, Galileo and Egnos with navigation—the European equivalent to GPS in some respects—GovSatCom deals with communications, and Iris deals with air traffic management, which we discussed along with aspects of air safety regulations in the last debate. Space Situational Awareness and Space Surveillance and Tracking deal with space debris. Those issues to not come up on a day-to-day basis but, given the cross-border nature of operations, it is crucial that we continue co-operating with our European neighbours, in particular on space debris, given the likely trajectories of launches from the UK and the likely descent paths of items falling from launches and so on. Those things are designed and planned in such a way as to avoid the descent of dangerous materials, but given the increasing number of launches and the increasing number of vehicles being launched into space, and with technology going up through space launch methods, getting that stuff right is obviously important.
We do not want to find ourselves getting into a dispute with our European neighbours after something falls off something we have launched. That is why international agreements on space activities are so crucial, particularly with our European neighbours. Will the Minister say something about the assessment that has been made of our existing international obligations and obligations that we could be in the process of entering into if we stay in the European Union, and their implications?
Joseph Johnson
The Government recognise the enormous benefits of European collaboration in space, and indeed in research and innovation generally. We published a science and innovation discussion paper as well as an external security discussion paper in September 2017 that set out the Government’s clear wish to discuss options for future arrangements in the EU space programmes, including Galileo, Copernicus, Agnos and others. The decision that concluded phase 1 of the exit negotiations in December provides certainty that UK businesses can continue to bid for and win contracts to build, operate and help develop the EU space programme, which we have played a huge part in over the years.
The Government continue to invest in the success of the UK space sector. We recently invested more than £100 million in new satellite test facilities at Harwell and manufacture and test facilities for rocket engines at Westcott in Buckinghamshire. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is in addition to the substantial UK investment in the European Space Agency, which is a non-EU body, of around £300 million per year.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for his answer on some of those agencies. Again, I have a particular interest in this as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Airbus Defence and Space is in the next door constituency and a number of my constituents work there. I know they and many other members of UK space bodies have concerns about future participation in these agencies.
I welcome what the Minister said on the principles with respect to the agencies, but he did not mention specifically the more technical space debris agencies and other agencies. Rather than detain him now, could he write to the Committee and outline how he sees our international obligations functioning under all of the agencies I mentioned?
Joseph Johnson
I am happy to provide further details about our common approach to space debris, if that would be helpful, and undertake to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Power to authorise entry etc in emergencies
Karl Turner
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 32, page 23, line 31, at end insert—
‘(4A) An enforcement authorisation must be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours, following the 48 hour period under subsection (7) in which the enforcement authorisation remains in force.”
This amendment provides that an urgent enforcement authorisation must be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours, following the 48-hour period under Clause 32(7) of the Bill, during which the enforcement authorisation remains in force.
The amendment provides that an urgent enforcement authorisation must be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours following the 48-hour period under subsection (7), during which the enforcement authorisation remains in force. The amendment aims to clear up any ambiguity surrounding clauses 31 and 32, which grant warrants authorising entry or direct action and powers to authorise entry in emergencies.
Clause 32(2) permits a named person to do anything necessary for protecting national security, securing compliance with international obligations or protecting health and safety. My colleagues in the other place raised concerns about emergency warrants and such vague wording. The power conferred by clause 32 is very extensive and broad. It contains no thorough judicial oversight. The Minister is well aware that the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee also expressed concerns about this aspect of the Bill, which was obviously mentioned in detail in the other place.
We welcome the fact that the Government reduced the authorisation period from one month to 48 hours, which limits the Secretary of State’s power to a degree. However, we still have concerns that such significant and wide-ranging powers will be exercisable without anticipatory or rapid post hoc judicial involvement.
Currently, there is not enough in the Bill to check whether the powers granted under clause 32 will be appropriately or proportionately used by the authorised person. The Minister in the other place stated that the amendment would “impose unhelpful bureaucracy”. We believe that judicial oversight of emergency warrants is crucial to ensure that such excessive powers are not abused, and we do not believe that we are asking for anything unreasonable. Having checks in place to ensure that this extensive power is not misused will improve the Bill. It is not, as stated by the Minister in the other place, “unhelpful bureaucracy”. I hope the Minister can give assurances that the Government are listening to those concerns and will take them on board.
Dr Whitford
I rise to support the amendment. Clause 31 refers to the seeking of warrants from justices of the peace, where there is time to do so. Clearly, there will be situations where that is not reasonable and therefore we accept that there is a need to allow emergency entry— 48 hours should be sufficient to allow that warrant to be reviewed by a justice of the peace. We welcome that the Government reduced emergency entry from a month to 48 hours, but it is perfectly reasonable that it should be looked at by a justice of the peace within two days.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East and for Central Ayrshire for raising the issue of emergency powers. The clause confers on the Secretary of State the power to grant an enforcement authorisation to carry out any specified action in the most urgent cases, such as a serious risk to national security, compliance with our international obligations or people’s health and safety. The amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman would seek to require that such an enforcement authorisation be evaluated by a justice of the peace within 48 hours of the 48 hours that the authorisation has been in force.
The Government have listened carefully at all stages of the discussion of the provision and addressed concerns before the Bill was brought to the House. Before the Bill’s introduction, the Science and Technology Committee raised concerns about the length of time for which an enforcement authorisation would remain in place. In response to that helpful intervention, we reduced the time for which an enforcement authorisation can remain in place from one month to 48 hours.
The Opposition in the other place attempted to introduce amendments similar to that tabled by the hon. Gentleman. The amendments are not clear on the purpose that a post hoc evaluation by a justice of the peace would serve—the order would have already been spent and the specified action taken. It is also not clear what is expected to follow from any such evaluation. However, the Government have reflected further on the amendments and the intentions underpinning them. Officials have carried out extensive discussions with colleagues across Whitehall, including in the Ministry of Justice, the chief magistrate’s office and the Home Office, which is responsible for the powers of entry gateway process. None of the discussions resulted in the suggestion that the power should be amended as the amendment proposes. An important reason for that is that there is no known precedent of a justice of the peace conducting an evaluation of an emergency power once it has been exercised.
Let me reassure hon. Members that there are adequate safeguards in the Bill with respect to the exercise of this significant power. Such an authorisation can be granted only to a named person who the Secretary of State is satisfied is suitably qualified to carry out the necessary action. Each time the power is used, the authorisation must be in writing, must specify the action required and will remain in force for only 48 hours from the time it is granted.
In response to concerns previously raised about the exercise of this power without sanction by an independent judicial authority, it is important to note that the decision of the Secretary of State to issue an enforcement authorisation could be challenged by judicial review. I would also point out that this power is more conservative and requires more stringent authorisation than other comparable powers of entry, such as those of nuclear inspectors or health and safety inspectors who are provided with a standing authorisation and may act at their discretion. The power would be used only in the most serious and urgent cases, but it is necessary to ensure that those involved in spaceflight activities and third parties are adequately protected should such situations arise.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Minister is being very helpful. One of the interesting points that lies behind some of the concerns is about who advises the Secretary of State that the intervention needs to be made in the first place. Will the Minister give a little more flavour of the process whereby advice is given that leads to an intervention order? That may give some comfort to the Opposition.
Joseph Johnson
The enforcement authorisations would be a last resort where the regulatory bodies in question felt that it was absolutely imperative to have one in the interests of our national security, or for the pursuit of our international obligations, or the health and safety of individuals in and around the spaceport or elsewhere in the UK. It is very much a power of last resort. Given the nature of the activities being undertaken at spaceports, everyone should be able to see the need for such provisions.
Karl Turner
I hear what the Minister says, but he seems to be saying that, because there is no precedent for a justice of the peace to review such warrants, it is not necessary. He also said that judicial review is available, but he must appreciate that the threshold to succeed in judicial review is very high and that it is extremely costly to the party bringing the proceeding. Frankly, he has not gone anywhere near far enough, and for that reason I am pressing the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Space Industry Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 23rd January 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2018 - (23 Jan 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We resume line-by-line consideration of the Space Industry Bill. We are sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? Teas and coffees are not allowed during sittings.
Clause 33
Liability of operator for injury or damage etc
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 33, page 24, line 2, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment relates to situations where the operator has no liability in order that those living around the spaceports have adequate powers to protect themselves from noise and nuisance.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. The amendment relates to situations where the operator has no liability, and seeks to ensure that people living around spaceports have adequate powers to protect themselves from noise nuisance. The Bill originally contained no proper provisions to protect people living close to spaceports or under potential flightpaths from noise. The word “noise” was not even included in the Bill. It now is, but only once. Again, I pay tribute to my colleagues in the other place, particularly my Front-Bench colleagues, who managed to secure that vital concession.
I welcome the Government’s insertion of an assurance that licences can include a condition that an assessment must be done of the noise and emissions that activity will cause, and of the impact on local communities. To say that aircraft noise is rather loud would be an understatement. I can imagine the noise and nuisance if we ended up regularly launching rockets in the UK. Will the Minister therefore give us an assurance that he will look closely at what powers people who live around potential UK spaceports have to protect themselves from such noise nuisance?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
I appreciate that there are concerns about the possibility that spaceflight activities may have an adverse effect on local people. Clause 33 is designed to balance the right to quiet enjoyment of land against the right to carry out a commercial activity, to ensure that there is only minimal encroachment of rights where the operator acts in accordance with the law.
Subsection 1 is replicated from section 76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which provides a similar protection for aircraft operators. Amendment 20 would remove the protection for spaceflight operators. However, the Government believe that subsection (1) is appropriate to enable spaceflight operators to carry out activities from the UK. Such a provision is necessary to prevent an operator who acts lawfully from being sued by a third party who considers that his or her right to quiet enjoyment of land is being affected.
Where carrier aircraft are used as part of spaceflight activities, local people will continue to have no such claims against aircraft operators because of the protection in section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act, so the amendment would have little practical effect on spaceports that are adapted aerodromes, such as the potential spaceports at Newquay and Prestwick. However, it should be stressed that such a protection does not apply if an operator does not comply substantially with all the requirements imposed on them.
The protection from claims of nuisance and trespass does not prevent anyone who suffers injury or damage arising from spaceflight activities from bringing a claim against an operator under the strict liability course of action provided for in subsection (2). With that assurance, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 33, page 24, line 31, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment places a definite cap on the amount of a licensee’s liability.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, in clause 33, page 24, line 36, at end insert—
“(5A) The limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability as referenced in subsection (5) must not exceed €60 million for each launch.”
Amendment 9, in clause 33, page 24, line 36, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (5) must provide for—
(a) the maximum limit on the amount of a particular licensee’s liability to be based on each launch undertaken by the operator;
(b) the maximum limit on the amount of a licensee’s liability to vary depending on the classification type of each launch.
(5B) The classification type for each launch as in subsection (5A) is defined as the level of risk attached to each launch and will be determined by the regulator in accordance with the regulations.”
This amendment allows for a mandatory cap for the licensee’s liability to be based on each launch rather than per satellite and would ensure the cap on the amount of a licensee’s liability can vary depending on the type of launch depending on its risk classification.
Amendment 10, in clause 33, page 24, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment places a definite cap on the amount of a licensee’s liability.
Dr Whitford
This group of amendments comes back to the issue of liability for operators and, in particular, the need to set some form of cap on their liabilities so that they can get insurance.
Amendment 7 would change “may” to “must” in subsection 5. As I said earlier, that is not to set the limit, but to raise the principle of one. Later, as we will see when we come to Government amendments to clause 34, the Government themselves change “may” to “must”, implying that there is a cap that they are paying above. Similarly, in clause 33(6) we would also change “may” to “must”.
It needs to be stated that the maximum limit would not go above the €60 million that satellite launchers currently have to indemnify elsewhere. However, what has been described in the Bill and in the explanatory notes is that the launch activities carried out in the UK may be quite different, as the Minister just talked about with regard to noise nuisance. In horizontal take-off, we are talking about an aeroplane carrying a small rocket that will launch cube satellites and micro-satellites such as Unicorn.
As I said earlier, the current limit of €60 million per satellite, and therefore the launch of micro-satellites, would be untenable. Therefore, we need to consider in the consultation making the amount per launch, or per cluster, as opposed simply to per satellite. The Government need to reassure us that they accept the principle of a limited liability and of a liability cap.
There is also the discussion in the paper of describing launches as having a green or amber risk—obviously, those at red risk would not get a licence. Therefore, it could be done by class as opposed to launch by launch. Horizontal take-off vehicles launching cube satellites and micro-satellites might be given a different classification than a vertical take-off vehicle carrying large satellites, as has been the case elsewhere.
This cluster of amendments simply intends to bring back this basic principle that the industry has raised with me, and I am sure with other Members. It has also submitted in writing again that the failure to commit to setting a liability cap whereby industry indemnifies the Government up to a certain level means that companies will not manage to get insurance and they simply will not launch from the UK.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
To add to the comments of my hon. Friend, this issue could affect where future developments take place in the space industry. Jurisdictions such as Singapore do not require satellites—Glasgow has strength in satellites—to be built locally. However, other jurisdictions require satellites to be built in the local area or in the country.
If cube satellite businesses do not get a mandatory liability cap within this Bill, there is a danger that future development will be affected, and a danger that, when those businesses are looking to expand or develop satellites for future use, they will do so where they can get one. That would be where they can insure and launch satellites. It is absolutely crucial that we get this issue sorted at this stage.
Joseph Johnson
We discussed an operator’s liability to indemnify the Government against claims from foreign states and their nationals in clause 35. In addition, clause 33 places a strict liability on the operator to compensate third parties in the UK who suffer injury or damage as a result of space flight activity. This is necessary because the Bill allows spaceflight activities to take place from the UK. The intention is to provide easy recourse to compensation for the uninvolved general public in the UK on the same basis as compensation available to foreign nationals.
Clause 33(5) provides a power to make regulations to limit an operator’s liability arising out of spaceflight activities. As we have discussed, the Government intend to issue a call for evidence to consider whether such a cap is appropriate. The amendments seek to require the Government to make regulations that specify a cap on liability in an operator’s licence based on the risk profile of the launch.
The proposal is to set an upper limit on that cap in secondary legislation of €60 million. That figure, as we have discussed, reflects the existing cap on an operator’s liability to indemnify the Government in a licence for a standard mission issued under the Outer Space Act 1986, which was set following considerable experience of satellite licensing. There is no reason to believe that that is also an appropriate level at which to cap a launch vehicle operator’s liability to third parties in the UK, since that activity is likely to be inherently more risky.
Creating inflexibility in legislation is also not helpful. The existing Government indemnity liability cap of €60 million for satellite operators is set by a policy decision and can be varied as appropriate—the figure is not laid down in the Outer Space Act for that reason. The UK Space Agency is considering its approach to risk management of satellite licensing, including the implications for liabilities and insurance requirements. That flexibility is vital if regulation is to keep up with a rapidly changing space sector. The UK Space Agency intends to issue further guidance on that new approach later this year.
As that demonstrates, legislative flexibility is better for both industry and the Government, because it allows the regulator to determine case by case whether to cap liability and the level of any cap. That should encourage operators to design their missions to reduce injury and damage as much as possible, leading to safer launches and reduced costs for them.
Joseph Johnson
Let me turn to some of the hon. Lady’s specific points before she intervenes—I may anticipate what she is about to ask.
A mandatory cap on liability and mandatory Government compensation embedded in primary legislation could potentially breach state aid rules. That could also cause difficulties in respect of future trading rules applying to the UK, although those are of course as yet unknown. For that reason, it is important to retain the flexibility to deal with the issue by way of secondary legislation. In that way, this and future Governments will have a power to introduce and vary a cap to ensure that it is in line with our legal obligations. It can also be varied in the light of changes in the market or in our trading commitments.
The amendment to clause 33(4)(a) means that the Government—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire commented on this—must compensate a claimant only in the event of a cap. That amendment does not mean that there is a cap on the face of the Bill.
Dr Whitford
As I said in my remarks, it is the principle a cap as opposed to the amount. I totally understand the need for consultation, because the type of space industry being discussed is different from space industries elsewhere, where vertical rockets are launched. I am still not clear why the Government are unwilling to commit to a cap in principle when that is what the industry is crying out for.
Joseph Johnson
I will repeat what I said before. As soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent we will start the process of a call for evidence to determine whether there is a need for a cap and the level at which any such cap might be set.
Dr Whitford
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 33, page 24, line 39, at end insert—
“(7) Within 6 months of this Act coming into force the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out divisions of responsibility and the level of liability for parties’ spaceflight activities, including—
(a) the Spaceport;
(b) the launch operator; and
(c) the satellite operator.”
This amendment places a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish clear guidelines with regards to responsibility and liability for parties involved in spaceflight activities.
This is a probing amendment to highlight the fact that in the past the space industry was very much state-driven, state-paid-for and state-covered, and now we are moving to a commercial situation where a spaceport, a launch company and a satellite company will be totally different entities. Therefore, I seek clarification in the consultation of exactly where the handover of liability is from one to the other and what responsibilities they have. We would not want to see people arguing at the edges and bystanders, other companies or satellite companies ending up not being compensated for a mission that failed.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the important matter of the respective responsibilities and liabilities that spaceports, launch operators and operators of satellites will have. The full scope of a licensee’s responsibilities will be set out in the Bill, in regulations made under the Bill and in the terms of specific licences granted by the regulator. In broad terms, it is envisaged that the Bill will enable the regulator to license four types of activity initially: operation of a spaceport, spaceflight activities involving launch of a spacecraft, operation of a satellite and provision of range control services.
The Bill sets out certain high-level responsibilities and obligations on licensees. Most obligations are on persons carrying out spaceflight activities. I shall refer to them as spaceflight operators for convenience, although that term is not used in the Bill. Those include persons carrying out launch and operating a satellite. It is considered that activities of the spaceflight operator are the most likely to cause injury or damage to third parties.
In the case of spaceflight operators, clause 9 imposes obligations to assess the risk to health and safety posed by the spaceflight activity, to comply with the risk assessment requirements and to take all reasonable steps to reduce risks to the general public so that they are as low as reasonably practicable.
Under clause 16, the spaceflight operator must not allow individuals to take part in a spaceflight activity unless they meet criteria prescribed in regulations and have signed a consent form signifying that they understand and accept the risks of taking part in the spaceflight activity. Under clause 17, the spaceflight operator must not allow unqualified individuals to take part in or otherwise be engaged with the spaceflight activity.
Clause 33 places a strict liability on a spaceflight operator to provide the uninvolved general public with a straightforward remedy for compensation for injury or damage caused by their spaceflight activities. This strict liability would apply to any injury or damage caused in the UK or its territorial waters, and to an aircraft in flight or persons and property on board such aircraft. It applies to damage that is caused by a craft or space object being used for spaceflight activities.
Spaceflight operators also have an obligation under clause 35 to indemnify the Government for any claims brought against the Government for loss or damage caused by their spaceflight activities. Other bodies that may be carrying out functions on behalf of the Government also benefit from the indemnity.
On the responsibilities and liabilities of spaceport operators, clause 10 requires that applicants for a spaceport licence must take all reasonable steps to ensure that risks to public safety of operating the spaceport are as low as reasonably practicable. In addition, the applicant will need to fulfil any criteria and requirements set out in regulations. In the case of providers of range control services, they will be governed by the provisions of clauses 5, 6 and 7 and regulations made under those clauses.
In addition to the Bill, further detailed obligations and responsibilities for all types of licence holders will be prescribed in regulations: for example, safety requirements under clause 18 and security requirements under clause 21. Those regulations will be supplemented by detailed guidance.
The regulations will set out licensing and ongoing requirements and any oversight of operations to ensure that spaceflight activities and spaceports are operated safety. In addition to general responsibilities and liabilities imposed by the Bill, and regulations made under it, the terms of individual licences will specify the particular activities authorised under that licence and the responsibilities that go with them. Individual licences will also be subject to licence conditions tailored to their application, examples of which are set out in schedule 1.
I hope I have reassured the hon. Lady that the Bill, combined with the regulations to be made under it and the terms of individual licences, will provide the necessary clarity on the responsibilities and liabilities that come with being a licence holder under the Bill. The Government intend to consult publicly an all initial draft statutory instruments and statutory guidance. All draft regulations will be accompanied by a full explanation of their intent. Furthermore, reflecting the importance that the Government place on consultation, we have amended the Bill to impose a statutory duty to carry out public consultation before making any regulations under the affirmative resolution procedure. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I want to underline the point that has been made as it applies well to what we are talking about—the wording that relates to liabilities, given their legal implications. It also applies to clause 68.
The Minister will be aware that UKspace, the space trade association, has raised concerns about the terminology used, which in this circumstance and in other parts of the Bill is not necessarily consistent with that used in the industry. To give an example of the confusion, the industry uses “launch systems” or “launch services” to refer to the launching of satellites, whereas the Bill appears to use “spacecraft” for that. The industry uses the word “spacecraft” to refer to man-made objects that are to be delivered into space—also known as “the payload.”
I do not want to get into a big semantic debate but, particularly when we are talking about where liabilities lie—whether with a launch operator or a satellite operator, or with a spacecraft, a launch system or launch services—I want an assurance from the Minister that there will be clear guidance, understood by the industry, the public and the courts when it comes to interpreting the Bill’s provisions.
Joseph Johnson
I am happy to repeat the assurance I gave a second ago. We will consult publicly on all the initial draft statutory instruments and the statutory guidance that will give effect to the provisions. I hope that that process will address any remaining areas of uncertainty about terminology, to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Dr Whitford
I look forward to seeing the regulations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Power of Secretary of State to indemnify
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 34, page 25, line 15, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment concerns the case where a person is caused injury or damage by spaceflight activities carried out by a licensee whose liability to that person is capped by regulations under clause 33(5). It converts the Secretary of State’s power to indemnify that person in respect of any shortfall into a duty to do so.
Joseph Johnson
The Bill is designed to ensure that spaceflight activity is as safe as possible, and risks to third parties are minimised as far as possible. However, no activity is entirely without risk and we have to account for that. If injury or damage arise, it is right that affected third parties should have easy recourse to compensation. That policy does not change if an operator has a capped liability.
As we discussed, clause 33(5) provides a power to make regulations that enable a regulator to specify a cap on an operator’s liability for injury or damage arising out of their spaceflight activities to prescribed persons, or in prescribed circumstances. Those persons and circumstances would be set out in regulations, but we envisage that a cap would be on an operator’s liability to the uninvolved general public who suffer injury or damage as a result of spaceflight activities. As that liability can be capped, clause 34(3), as drafted, provides the Secretary of State with a power to indemnify a claimant in situations where injury or damage caused by spaceflight activities exceeds an apparatus capped liability amount.
Having listened carefully to the debate in the other place, the Government agree that it is right to go further, and the amendments turn the power under clause 34(3) into a duty, and ensure that the Government must pay the remaining compensation above that amount. I am sure that that will be welcomed by hon. Members, as it reflects the desire on both sides of the House to ensure that third parties will rightly never miss out.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 34, page 25, line 22, after first “or” insert “duty under subsection”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 34, page 25, line 26, after “may” insert “or must”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 34, page 25, line 29, after “or” insert “duty under subsection”.—(Joseph Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 1.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 35 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Powers to obtain rights over land
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitford
I really just want to speak to clause 38(4), and the rights created under that. Again, this refers to the devolved nations, which currently have four of the five sites being discussed, although obviously future sites may well be scattered right across the UK. We are looking, again, for some consultation in the event of rights being taken over land that would be with the devolved Government. I have an amendment on that later, but I wanted to refer to it during debate on the clause itself.
Joseph Johnson
I can set out some context for the hon. Lady that might clarify the issue. Some concern was expressed in the other place about the provisions, but I assure the Committee that the Government are taking a responsible and balanced approach. We have sought to address those concerns by amending the Bill.
In clause 38 in particular, we made it clear on the face of the Bill that an order will be made only when the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, rather than when it is expedient, as the Bill said originally. Powers are restricted to what is required and proportionate for securing safe space flight operations. There are no powers in the Bill for a spaceport licence holder, launch operator or range control service provider to purchase land compulsorily.
The clause allows for the creation of orders granting rights over land. Such orders may be necessary to ensure that utilities and other supporting infrastructure can be installed and maintained—for radar or surveillance, for example. Space flight from the UK will be conducted on a commercial basis, so we expect operators to negotiate access in the vast majority of cases. Such an order, therefore, would be created only as a last resort, where a negotiation with the landowner had failed to produce a mutually agreeable outcome. Schedule 6 sets out further provision for such circumstances, including how notice for such orders should be given and how proposed orders can be objected to.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Challenges to and commencement of orders
Dr Whitford
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 42, page 31, line 12, at end insert—
‘(4) An order under section 38 or 40 cannot be made in relation to a spaceport or prospective spaceport without the consent of—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, in relation to the use of land in Scotland;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, in relation to the use of land in Wales;
(c) the Northern Ireland devolved authority, in relation to the use of land in Northern Ireland.
(5) In this section, a “Northern Ireland devolved authority” means the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department.”
This amendment would ensure that consent of devolved administrations is sought prior to the Secretary of State exercising their powers under Clauses 38 and 40.
This is the formal amendment on the point that I made in relation to clause 38 about a requirement to consult on land enforcement orders with the devolved powers in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
Joseph Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling this amendment, allowing me again to address the subject of land powers, in the specific context of the devolved Administrations. I reassure her and other Committee members that there has been considerable engagement with the devolved Administrations as the provisions have been developed.
Officials have been engaging with the devolved Administrations since early 2014, when they met the Welsh and Scottish Governments to discuss ambitions to create a UK spaceport. Representatives from the devolved Administrations have since been invited to launch UK events across the country, bringing together many of those interested in becoming involved in the operations or supply chains of spaceports or space flight activities.
Alongside this general engagement, we have worked with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at official level to ensure that the devolved Administrations are content with all provisions in the Bill. Specifically, on land powers, we have agreed an approach that the devolved Administrations have confirmed they are content with.
Before the introduction of the Bill, we discussed the land provisions with the Scottish Government, the Lands Tribunals for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Registers of Scotland. We have since consulted the Scottish Civil Justice Council on the practical implications of orders under clauses 38 and 40. These organisations have confirmed that they are content with the implications for their processes and have not requested amendment to the current drafting of the clauses. Orders made on Welsh land would be subject to the same registration process as those in England, and any tribunals that were to be involved would be the same ones as for England.
The previous Minister of State for Transport spoke with the Scottish Government Minister for Transport to update him on the progress of the Bill and the proposed amendments ahead of Report in the other place. In addition, my officials continue to engage with the devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as the Bill makes its progress through the parliamentary process.
Going back to the clauses to which the hon. Lady’s amendment refers, I should say that an opportunity for those in the devolved Administrations to raise any concerns about a specific order is provided in schedule 6. The schedule requires that notice of a proposal to make an order under clause 38 or a land order under clause 40 must be published in local newspapers and served on the local authority. However, we expect that spaceport or launch operators, or range control service providers, will work closely with local landowners and local authorities as they develop their plans for sites and launches.
We also expect that, rather than orders under clauses 38 and 40 being necessary, operators will negotiate with landowners for access to land or for restrictions on the use of land or water near a spaceport site. Representatives of the companies hoping to develop the first spaceports have confirmed that they have indeed been working closely with local landowners and local authorities as they progress their plans.
I should also emphasise that orders that may be made under clauses 38 and 40 are compatible with the existing body of planning legislation and will not restrict the ability of local planning authorities to take planning decisions. Should Ministers in the devolved Administrations wish to call in any planning decision relating to the development of a spaceport site, their right to do so will not be affected by any provision in this Bill.
I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that the powers in clauses 38 and 40 will not impact on the ability of local planning authorities or Ministers in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to take planning decisions as they would usually. I hope she is reassured that the devolved Administrations, as well as any persons served with a notice, will be able to object to the making of orders through the process set out in schedule 6. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing amendment 12.
Dr Whitford
I thank the Minister for that detailed explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 67
Regulations: general
Karl Turner
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 67, page 43, line 40, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
‘(6) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) regulations under section 4(2),
(b) regulations under section 5(2),
(c) regulations under section 7(4),
(d) regulations under section 7(6),
(e) regulations under section 9,
(f) regulations under section 12(7),
(g) regulations under section 18,
(h) regulations under section 22,
(i) regulations under section 34(5),
(j) regulations under section 35(3)(a),
(k) regulations under section 58,
(l) regulations under section 64, or
(m) regulations that create offences,
is subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure.
(6A) For the purposes of this Act the “super-affirmative procedure” is as follows.
(6B) The Minister must lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft resolution, and
(b) an explanatory document.
(6C) The explanatory document must—
(a) introduce and give reasons for the resolution,
(b) explain under which power or powers in this Act the provision contained in the resolution is made, and
(c) give a detailed explanation of provisions included in the resolution.
(6D) The Minister must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft resolution,
made during the 40-day period with regard to the draft resolution.
(6E) If, after the expiry of the 40-day period, the Minister wishes to make a resolution in the terms of the draft, he must lay before Parliament a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (6D)(a), and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(6F) The Minister may after the laying of such a statement make a resolution in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6G) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft resolution may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (6E) and before the draft resolution is approved by that House under subsection (6F), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft resolution.
(6H) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6G) in relation to a draft resolution, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft resolution in that House under subsection (6F) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(6I) If, after the expiry of the 40-day period, the Minister wishes to make a resolution consisting of a version of the draft resolution with material changes, he must lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft resolution, and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under subsection (6D)(a), and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(6J) The Minister may after laying a revised draft resolution and statement under subsection (6I) make a resolution in the terms of the revised draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6K) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft resolution may, at any time after the revised draft resolution is laid under subsection (6I) and before it is approved by that House under subsection (6J), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft resolution.
(6L) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6K) in relation to a revised draft resolution, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft resolution in that House under subsection (6J) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(6M) In this section the “40-day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft resolution was laid before Parliament under subsection (6B).”
The amendment provides for the use of the super-affirmative procedure rather than, when applicable, the affirmative procedure for considering regulations and secondary legislation. The super-affirmative procedure provides that a Minister must lay a draft resolution and explanatory document before both Houses and take account of any representations.
The amendment provides for the use of the super-affirmative procedure rather than, when applicable, the affirmative procedure for considering regulations and secondary legislation. As we know, the super-affirmative procedure provides that a Minister must lay a draft order and an explanatory document before both Houses and take account of any representations.
I do not intend to speak for long to the amendment, because it was previously debated at some length in the other place. It is about parliamentary scrutiny. It aims to change the Bill so that a significant statutory instrument arising from the delegated powers consistently go through a super-affirmative procedure, which will mean that it is debated in both Houses, rather than the negative procedure, when it would automatically become law without proper parliamentary debate or scrutiny.
I will set out the case why such statutory instruments should be under the affirmative procedure each and every time they are brought forward. The Opposition have expressed great concern that the Government are attempting to evade proper parliamentary scrutiny on clause 67. Let me be clear that we support the Bill, but it is a skeleton Bill. It is already difficult to scrutinise properly in its current format. My colleagues in the other place raised the point that crucial regulations will not even be consulted on until next year, and will not come before Parliament for nearly two years at the very earliest.
I accept that we must consider rapid technological change and advances in the space industry—those points were made by the Minister in the other place—but how can we make sure that we get the proper legislative framework in place for the space industry, which is constantly developing? The Government and future Governments in years to come still need to be held to account, and Parliament needs to scrutinise legislation properly. I am sure that everyone in this Committee Room wants the United Kingdom’s space industry to grow. However, that should not come at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister assure us that he will consider the points raised and set out the Government’s position for future statutory instruments under the Bill?
Dr Whitford
The amendment is, as the hon. Gentleman referred to, about the potential delay for the industry from considering regulations. I seek assurances from the Minister that the timescale of two years that seems to be being discussed is erroneous, because otherwise we will not be launching anything in 2020. That timescale seemed to be referred to in the House of Lords—the hon. Gentleman also referred to it—but it would kick the industry into the long grass again. This process started in 2014 and we are in 2018. There had been an aspiration to be ready to launch from the UK in 2020, if the vehicles are ready. There is an urgency and I seek reassurance that we are getting on with it.
Joseph Johnson
Hon. Members may be aware—my noble Friend mentioned this—that a similar amendment was tabled in the other place. The Government reflected on the concerns of noble Lords and amended the Bill to impose a statutory duty to carry out a public consultation before making any regulations under the affirmative resolution procedure. The Bill now includes a requirement for a report by the Secretary of State on the consultation to be laid before Parliament. As my noble Friend the Minister made clear in the other place, a public consultation would invite a response from all interested parties. Subsequent regulations that materially change the substance of the original regulations would also be subject to public consultation.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East goes much further than that by imposing the super-affirmative procedure on affirmative regulations. As I have said, the Government have listened and taken on board the concerns raised in the other place, and the Bill now ensures that there is the enhanced scrutiny of affirmative regulations. The amendment would lead to a duplication of effort.
I assure hon. Members that it is the Government’s intention to continue to build on the open collaboration that has taken place throughout the development of this legislation—from publishing the Bill in draft, to the publication of policy scoping notes, to committing to formally consult on the draft regulations prior to laying them. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) noted on Second Reading, the Government have taken a very open attitude in developing this legislation and in engaging with hon. Members and noble Lords in the other place to ensure we have a successful Bill. We want that to continue as we go on to the next stages of secondary legislation, consultation on guidance and so forth.
The question from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire on the timing of the laying of statutory instruments is a novel and complex challenge. I know she appreciates that that requires detailed policy development, building in parallel internal expertise to enable us to deliver an effective regulatory regime. There is a wealth of best practice in the industry and we need to work with stakeholders to identify how we can best design the regulatory framework and the subsequent legislation on the basis of being informed adequately by those discussions. I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention to formally consult as soon as the draft statutory instruments are available.
I hope that that has assured hon. Members that the approach will continue as we develop secondary legislation, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Karl Turner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 68 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Grant of licences: assessments of environmental effects
“(1) This section applies to—
(a) a spaceport licence;
(b) an operator licence authorising launches of spacecraft or carrier aircraft.
(2) The regulator may not grant an application for a licence to which this section applies unless the applicant has submitted an assessment of environmental effects.
(3) In this section “assessment of environmental effects”—
(a) in relation to a spaceport licence, means an assessment of the effects that launches of spacecraft or carrier aircraft from the spaceport in question, or from launches of spacecraft from carrier aircraft launched from the spaceport, are expected to have on the environment;
(b) in relation to an operator licence authorising launches of spacecraft or carrier aircraft, means an assessment of the effects that those launches are expected to have on the environment.
(4) If or to the extent that the regulator directs, the requirement imposed by subsection (2) to submit an assessment of environmental effects may be met by submitting—
(a) an equivalent assessment prepared previously in compliance with a requirement imposed by or under another enactment, or
(b) an assessment of environmental effects prepared in connection with a previous application.
The regulator may make a direction under this subsection only if satisfied that there has been no material change of circumstances since the previous assessment was prepared.
(5) The regulator must take into account the assessment of environmental effects (including any assessment submitted as mentioned in subsection (4) in deciding—
(a) whether to grant a licence to which this section applies;
(b) what conditions should be attached to such a licence under section 12.
(6) The regulator must issue guidance about—
(a) the form, contents and level of detail of an assessment of environmental effects;
(b) the time for submitting an assessment of environmental effects;
(c) the circumstances in which the regulator will or may give a direction under subsection (4).
Guidance under paragraph (a) may specify matters that are to be dealt with in an assessment of environmental effects only if the regulator so requires in a particular case.”—(Joseph Johnson.)
This new clause requires assessments of environmental effects to be carried out before the regulator can grant certain licences, and makes further provision about such assessments.
Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Potential impact of leaving the European Union on the United Kingdom’s space industry
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the potential impact that leaving the European Union will have on the United Kingdom’s space industry.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must make reference to the following areas—
(a) membership of the European Space Agency;
(b) the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU on research and development and access to funding, including Horizon 2020;
(c) the free movement to the UK from the EU of those who work in the space industry;
(d) the UK’s participation in the Galileo and Copernicus programmes; and
(e) the impact of the UK leaving the Single Market on supply chains within the space industry. (3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament within one year of this Act passing, and once in each calendar year following.”—(Dr Philippa Whitford.)
This new clause would ensure the Government prepares and publishes an impact assessment of the potential impact on the space industry as a result of the UK leaving the EU.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Whitford
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In light of the process of leaving the European Union, the clause seeks, as was referred to by hon. Members earlier, to consider the impact. We have looked at the impact assessments, particularly at the aerospace assessment, when we had the opportunity to view what are called the Brexit papers, and what we saw was a description of the aerospace industry and comments from the industry, but not the impact.
Although the European Space Agency is separate to the EU, it receives significant funding from it. With the new clause, therefore, we seek assurances that the UK will still be able to be part of the agency, to be active in it and, as the Minister said earlier, to be able to bid for contracts under Copernicus or Galileo for satellite work, in which the UK is a leading player. The clause simply calls for an assessment of the impact on the developing space industry of leaving the EU, to ensure that, as negotiations go forward, the Government set themselves to achieve the best deal for the space industry.
Joseph Johnson
As the hon. Lady knows, the UK has played a major part in developing the main EU space programmes, Galileo and Copernicus, which have supported the rapid growth of the UK space sector and contributed directly to our prosperity. The UK is recognised for its specialist capability in the area of earth observation, and has been especially involved in the development of the Galileo security modules and encryption, which are integral to a secure and resilient earth observation system. The Government recognise that, which is why the future partnership papers I referred to earlier, which were published in September 2017, set out that, given the unique nature of the space programmes’ applications to security as well as to science and innovation, and the extent of the UK’s involvement, the EU and the UK should discuss all options for future co-operation, including new arrangements subsequent to our departure from the European Union.
Dr Whitford
Does the Minister therefore foresee the UK continuing to pay funds? If so, will they be paid directly to the ESA or via the EU? Obviously, the EU is a significant funder of the ESA.
Joseph Johnson
The European Space Agency delivers a number of programmes for the European Union, but we continue to be a member of the ESA in our own right and, as I said, we are contributing record amounts—more than €1.4 billion in the current budget period.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
For absolute clarity, is the Minister suggesting that payments via the EU could still be possible, in contrast with the Foreign Secretary’s position on that matter?
Joseph Johnson
I am not going to parse comments by others that I have not seen, but I can confirm that we remain a full member of the European Space Agency in our own right, we are contributing record amounts to its budget, and we have every expectation of continuing to be a full member of that organisation long into the future.
On the new clause’s requirement to undertake an assessment, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union provided the relevant Committees with reports for many sectors, including one for the UK space sector, on 27 November. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said, that report contained a description of the sector, the current EU regulatory regime, existing frameworks for the facilitation of trade between countries in the sector, and sector views.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
This is my first Bill Committee, so bear with me, Mr Bailey. The new clause suggests that the Secretary of State should have to make an annual assessment of the impact of our leaving the EU on research and development, including Horizon 2020, every year well after 2020, but Horizon 2020 clearly finishes in 2020. Does the Minister agree that it seems illogical to assess something that has already finished?
Joseph Johnson
I obviously note the point about the duration of Horizon 2020, which does indeed end at the end of 2020, but we have committed as a Government to exploring all options for future participation in the next set of framework programmes, which will start after 2020. We have every hope that those discussions will conclude successfully, because those research programmes deliver huge value to our science and research communities and to our universities all over the country, including in Scotland.
On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to consider withdrawing her new clause.
Dr Whitford
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Space Industry Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 6th February 2018
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 6 February 2018 - (6 Feb 2018)
15:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 33 / Noes: 277 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 33 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Potential impact of leaving the EU on the UK space industry (No.2)—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament a report setting out a summary of any discussions between the UK Government and the European Union on the future relationship between the UK space industry and the European Union, following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must make reference to, but is not limited to—
(a) options for future cooperation and partnership between the UK space industry and the European Union; and,
(b) any new arrangements with, or proposed access to, EU space programmes, following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.’
This new clause would ensure that Parliament is kept up to date with negotiations between the UK and European Union in regards to the UK space industry, in order to provide clarity to the UK space industry
Layla Moran
I rise to speak to new clause 1, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends and would require the publication of an assessment of the impacts of leaving the EU on the space industry. I do not wish to take up too much of the House’s time rehashing the arguments about the impact of Brexit on the space industry, as many such arguments were made on Second Reading, in Committee and in the other place, but I briefly want to place on the record the industry’s continuing concerns, which should require the Government to publish an assessment of the sort set out in new clause 1. I will take each of the areas that I would like to see in such a report in turn, starting with research and development and Horizon 2020.
The Minister is a former Science Minister, so I do not need to explain to him the importance of certainty for scientists in the space industry. Sadly, however, we still do not have that certainty so many months later. The UK is a net beneficiary of EU space funding, contributing 12.5% of the total budget but winning contracts worth 14% of total spend. The British space industry needs a guarantee of continued access to research and development funding, expertise and facilities currently provided at EU level after the UK leaves the EU. Of course, the European Commission also provides space-related research funding through Horizon 2020, and the Government have said they will guarantee successful bids made by UK participants before exit. However, beyond that the sector has had only warm words, and it needs certainly beyond the next few years. The Government’s science and innovation discussion paper states that the UK would “welcome discussion” on remaining a participant in certain EU science and innovation programmes.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
If the guarantee is only for another two years, there will be a profound effect on research and development, particularly in universities. If there is no guarantee beyond that, there will be a great deal of uncertainty for both universities and the industry.
Layla Moran
The hon. Gentleman is right, and my constituency is affected by such uncertainty.
I repeat a point that I made during the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill: we must remember that this is not just about funding. At a recent hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, witnesses were clear that the most valuable asset we have as a nation is our ability to attract human capital. To put it bluntly, the funding follows the brains. There is real consternation across the entire science industry that European scientists are actively looking to move, if they have not already, to more welcoming countries. Their lives are more than just their jobs; this is about where they live, love and participate in the community, so the tone of this debate matters hugely. It is therefore critical that we maintain freedom of movement for the world-class scientists, specialists and technicians who contribute to the space industry, so that we keep those brains and the funding here.
Patrick Wood, CEO of Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, an existing supplier to Galileo, has said that
“there are still a lot of unknowns”
about whether UK space companies will be able to access high-quality staff post-Brexit, noting that UK space infrastructure companies
“have a high percentage of staff that come from across Europe”
partly due to a lack of UK applicants. Aerospace companies are heavily reliant on the rapid movement of workers between different sites. A favourite fact of mine is that Airbus moved employees 80,000 times between the EU and the UK in 2016. It even has its own jet shuttle between Toulouse and Broughton. Any additional border checks between the UK and the EU could therefore prove a significant burden.
On Galileo, the European Commission is demanding the right to cancel existing contracts with UK companies that are constructing the £10 billion Galileo satellite navigation system unless the UK negotiates a new security relationship with the EU. If no long-term agreement can be found, UK companies may only be able to retain their contracts by setting up EU subsidiaries. With them will go the tax take, the brains and the supporting jobs.
Finally, I turn to the crucial effect of leaving the single market on supply chains within the UK space industry. Last year, I asked the Minister, in his former role, a series of parliamentary questions about the impact on the UK space sector supply chain of leaving the single market, but sadly there was not much in the answers to give heart to the industry. It has just not received the answers that it needs. Stuart Martin, CEO of the Satellite Applications Catapult said that
“Brexit represents a risk to the United Kingdom in sustaining its leadership position”
among sectors such as satellite manufacturing and navigation services. He also stated that the UK needs to sustain its leadership role within the European Space Agency and maintain access to the single market. Before anyone says, “But we will stay in the European Space Agency,” yes we will, but we must not forget that a quarter of its funding comes from the EU.
It is clear that the industry needs certainty on all those issues. We have had warm words, but not enough action. The Government’s shambolic handling of impact assessments and sectoral analyses, as well as this week’s uncertainty over future customs arrangements, is not inspiring confidence among the space industry. There are few specific commitments or guarantees in the Bill, so it is not unreasonable for the Government to publish an assessment of the sort that new clause 1 would require, and I hope that the Minister will consider doing so.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I start by passing on the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who has been heavily involved in the Bill since the beginning. Unfortunately, she is extremely unwell this week and has uncharacteristically heeded her daughter’s advice by staying at home, but she is no doubt watching from her sickbed.
I rise to support new clauses 1 and 2, which attempt to ensure a proper assessment of the potential damage that an extreme Brexit could cause our space industry. During the passage of the Bill, we have had a glimpse of the opportunities ahead for the UK’s space industry, but this relates to the wider reaches of the EU. The EU funds space research through Horizon 2020, and we want to ensure that we remain a player beyond that point. Although the European Space Agency is separate from the EU, it does still receive significant funding from it, so we need to know whether the Government have made any assessment of the impact of Brexit on our space industries. Given the previous impact assessment fudge, the answer is probably, “Probably not, but if we have, we will not be publishing it anyway.” That is simply not good enough. The new clauses make it clear that the Government will make that assessment and will publish it. If they do not accept these amendments, the question must be: what do the Government have to hide?
The European Commission has made it clear where it wants to go on space, so do the Government intend to remain part of the strategy and programme it has outlined? If we are not an integral part of the European space programme, what will be the impact on our viability as a spaceport centre, compared with other spaceports located within the European family?
How will we retain access to EU research and development projects, which are so important to our space industry? As has been mentioned, how will changes to freedom of movement affect this industry, an industry that exchanges talent across frontiers on a regular basis? Not all that talent will be at a salary threshold that allows easy access to the UK. Will we retain full access to programmes such as Galileo and Copernicus? Will we be marginalised in EU procurement decisions?
Those are all important questions for the Government to consider now, and they should be included in any impact assessment.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech that outlines the isolationist view that post-Brexit Britain is about to take. How does she square what the UK Government are saying about “global Britain” with the powerful points she has made this afternoon?
Carol Monaghan
We all want to see the space industry succeed, and we want to see it succeed on a global playing field, but we need to get this right. Requiring an impact assessment would make a big difference. We need to probe further on where our space industry will find itself in the increasingly likely event of a hard Brexit.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
New clause 2 would ensure that Parliament is kept up to date on negotiations between the UK and the European Union in regard to the UK space industry.
New clause 2 differs very slightly from new clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). Both new clauses have the same aims. New clause 2 asks the Government to produce a summary of any discussions between the UK Government and the European Union to ensure that Parliament is kept up to date on the progress of the negotiations. Just as importantly, new clause 2 would also provide clarity to the UK’s space industry.
It goes without saying, or at least it should, that the Government must ensure we get the best possible deal with the EU to help support the UK space industry’s continued growth. That is the whole point of the Bill, and it is why the Labour party is broadly supportive of it. UKspace, the trade association of the UK space industry, claims:
“The UK leaving the EU has created significant uncertainty which is already affecting the integrated supply chain, R&D collaboration and joint programmes with other EU countries.”
As colleagues have pointed out, the UK space industry makes a noteworthy contribution to our economy and employs close to 40,000 people. The industry is currently highly dependent on EU-led space programmes. As a result, the Government must ensure the UK gets a deal that secures the long-term future and growth of our space industry to ensure that the Government’s ambition for the UK to be a leading player in the global space industry is not just all talk and no action.
The Government provided a report to the Exiting the European Union Committee with a sectoral analysis of the UK space sector after our Opposition day debate on 1 November 2017—it is fair to say that we forced the issue. We welcome the Government publishing that document. However, the Opposition believe the document is not sufficient and that Parliament should be kept up to date with a further summary, which would also give the sector the additional clarity it asks for.
Any further uncertainty would hinder any potential growth in the UK space industry. New clause 2 is a reasonable and sensible amendment that would require the Government to publish a report setting out a summary within 12 months of Royal Assent, which is absolutely fair.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman speaks about growth in the industry. We heard a lot about growth on Second Reading, and the Minister has acknowledged the need for skills. Leaving aside new clause 2, but relevant to it, is there a case for cross-departmental work on developing those skills, given the complexity of meeting the industry’s needs? Would the hon. Gentleman offer that as a possible compromise to the Minister?
Karl Turner
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I was about to say that I do not intend to divide the House on new clause 2, but I hope the Minister takes his point on board.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
Like the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), the Government want the UK to make the most of the opportunities that lie ahead. We want the UK to be a go-to place for scientists, innovators and tech investors in the years ahead. We intend to secure the right outcomes for the UK research base, including our space community, as we exit the European Union.
As hon. Members will remember, the agreement that successfully concluded phase 1 of the exit negotiations in December 2017 made it clear that, as part of the financial settlement, the UK will remain part of Horizon 2020 until at least the end of this budget period in December 2020. As part of the new deep and special relationship with the EU, recognising our shared interest in maintaining and strengthening research collaboration, the UK will seek an agreement that promotes science and innovation, including on space, across Europe now and in the future. We would welcome a specific agreement to continue collaborating with our European partners on major science, space research and technology initiatives, and we will be approaching the upcoming negotiations on that basis.
New clause 1 would require the Government to undertake an assessment. As Members will remember, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union provided the relevant Select Committees with reports on many sectors, including the space sector, on 27 November 2017. The space sector report contained a description of the sector, the current EU regulatory regime, the existing frameworks for facilitating trade, including between countries, and the sector views on it. Ministers have a specific responsibility, which Parliament has previously endorsed, not to release information that would undermine our negotiating position, and I know Members present understand that position.
On new clause 2, the Government’s September partnership paper set out our intent with regard to discussing options for future co-operation and partnership with the EU through the EU space programme. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has given a clear undertaking to the House that he will keep the relevant Select Committees informed of progress in discussions with the EU Commission on EU exit matters. That commitment to openness needs to be balanced with the overriding national interest in preserving our negotiating position.
I recognise the interest of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) in how our future relationship with the EU will help support the continued strong growth in the space sector—it is an interest the Government share—but I hope he will appreciate that we cannot enter into commitments to inform Parliament about the EU exit negotiations on a sector-by-sector basis, through various bits of legislation. In the light of that, I ask the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon to withdraw new clause 1.
Layla Moran
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause 3
Publication of regulations
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament setting out details of the regulations issued under this Act.
(2) The report in subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to, regulations that have effect for licences for—
(a) spaceports;
(b) launch operators;
(c) satellite operators; and
(d) range control operators.
(3) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views in respect of any proposed regulations.
(4) As well as consulting those in subsection (3) the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) UKspace, and
(b) any other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” .—(Carol Monaghan.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish clear guidelines on the regulations issued under this Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Cap on licensees’ liability limit—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament setting out plans for a cap on licensees’ liability.
(2) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on what an appropriate maximum limit would be on the amount of a licensee’s liability, and lay a report before Parliament setting this out.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must provide for, but is not limited to—
(a) a maximum limit on the amount of a particular licensee’s liability for each launch undertaken by the operator;
(b) a maximum limit on the amount of licensees’ liability for each launch classification type;
(c) divisions of responsibility and the level of liability for parties’ spaceflight activities, including—
(i) the Spaceport;
(ii) the launch operator; and
(iii) the satellite operator.
(4) In subsection (3) “launch classification type” means the level of risk attached to each type of launch as determined by the regulator.
(5) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views in respect of any proposed regulations.
(6) As well as consulting those under subsection (5) the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) UKspace, and
(b) any other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Government to consult on and set a mandatory cap on licensees’ liability for each individual launch, based on the classification type of each launch.
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 8, line 24, at end insert—
‘(10) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish guidance about any regulations in relation to operator licences. Such guidance must be issued by the regulator (if the regulator is not the Secretary of State).
(11) The regulator must hold pre-licensing discussions with any potential operator before an operator licence can be issued to them.
(12) Discussions under subsection (11) must include, but are not limited to, providing potential operators with guidance on any regulations in relation to operator licences.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance about any regulations issued in relation to operator licences, and to hold discussions with all potential operators before a licence can be issued to them, to ensure that the UK space industry is sufficiently aware of the regulatory framework.
Amendment 1, in clause 68, page 44, line 35, after “offences,” insert—
“(n) regulations under subsection (1) of this section”
This amendment would make regulations made under section 68(1) subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 2, in schedule 6, page 61, line 2, after “authority” insert “and devolved administration”
This amendment would make it a requirement that when an order is made to obtain rights over land, notices about the orders must be served to devolved administrations, where relevant.
Amendment 3, page 61, line 22, after “authority” insert “and devolved administration”
This amendment would make it a requirement that when an order is made to obtain rights over land, notices about the orders must be served to devolved administrations, where relevant.
Carol Monaghan
Once again, this amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who cannot be here this afternoon. New clause 3 will ensure that guidelines for spaceports are clear and published, and take into account the views of devolved Administrations and stakeholders. The devolved nations currently have the majority of the sites being considered for spaceports, so we are looking for some consultation in the event of rights being taken over land that would be with the devolved Government.
The lack of a liability cap in the Bill is causing us concern. New clause 4 would ensure that there must be a cap. It calls on the Government to come to Parliament, after consultation, and provide their plans on what an appropriate cap would be. A liability cap would bring our space industry into line with those of Australia, France and the USA, which is the world space leader. The purpose of the liability cap is to allow spaceflight operators to obtain affordable insurance—without it, the prohibitive cost of obtaining insurance for unlimited liability would undermine the growth of the space industry in the UK, which is the key point of the Bill. Simply put, without a cap in place, launches will not take place in the UK.
The industry stakeholders’ main worry with the Bill is the absence of a mandatory liability cap for spaceflight operators. The Government have said that they need to be flexible, but if the industry is calling for a cap, they need to both listen and take action. We understand that a cap level will not necessarily be set at this point, but a guarantee that there will be a cap would go some way to providing assurance to the industry. The chairman of UKspace, Richard Peckham, has said that insurers have made it clear that they would not be prepared to do business without a benchmark, so it is vital this takes place.
Our new clause 4 would allow the Government to be flexible on the liability cap by creating different caps for different launches, given there will be quite a broad range of risk depending on the scale of the satellite. One mechanism that has been discussed in Committee is the red, amber and green risk assessment to describe different types of missions, with a different cap for each type of mission. I am not entirely convinced that that would be entirely useful, as clearly those classified as a red risk would not get a licence. However, this could be done by class, for example, with horizontal take-off vehicles carrying cube satellites being given a different classification from a vertical take-off vehicle carrying large satellites, as has happened elsewhere.
It is also important that we do not speak about liability per satellite and actually move towards a cap based on a per-launch system. That would be better suited to much of the growing UK industry. In Committee, I mentioned the importance of the cube satellite industry to Glasgow, which is second in the world, behind San Francisco, in the manufacture of cube satellites. Such satellites are often launched in clusters. If the figure for a liability cap were to be €60 million for each one of these tiny satellites, that would be prohibitive in terms of growing the industry.
In the longer term, this issue could affect where future developments take place in the space industry. Some countries do not require satellites to be built locally, whereas other jurisdictions require satellites that are being launched to be built in the local area or in the country of launch. If cube satellite businesses do not get a mandatory liability cap in this Bill, there is a danger that future investment will be affected and a real possibility that when those businesses are looking to expand, they will do so in a jurisdiction where liability is capped and insurance can be obtained.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady saying that the taxpayer should stand behind the extra liability above the cap?
Carol Monaghan
That is exactly how the liability works: the insurer covers up to whatever that liability is and the rest is picked up by Government. Once that is picked up by Government, we have to look at the revenue that is generated from that industry and at the amount of growth and jobs created. If we look at proper regulations on our spaceports, liability or risk will be extremely low. Every other country that is launching has a liability cap. We cannot possibly compete unless we have that in place.
As I have said, I understand that the Minister has committed to looking at the issue of the cap and talking to industry leaders about this issue. As I have also said, I am not pressing today for a figure, but the indication that a cap will be in place will provide great reassurance for the UK space industry and will allow it to grow in the way in which we hope it will.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In Committee, I heard the hon. Lady press the case for an unlimited liability cap. I also heard the Minister give an extraordinarily good and detailed explanation of the work that needed to go into the detailed preparation for such a cap. That is why it was decided in Committee not to put this measure in the Bill, by a vast majority, with cross-party support. It is not that we do not understand the need for this, but it needs to be set in the correct way.
Carol Monaghan
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, but I think she is missing the point, which is that there must be a cap in place for these companies to get insurance. Without it, they cannot get insurance, and without insurance, they cannot launch. If the Government are considering this cap, why is it not in the Bill? Why does the Bill not contain a statement that a cap will be put in place? I am not asking for a figure and I certainly did not talk about unlimited liability; we talked about limited liability. Unless this is in place, we are stifling a serious growth industry. So I call on the Government to accept the new clause and to listen to the concerns of the space industry.
Mr John Hayes
I intend to speak briefly on this issue, having heard what the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said and having looked at these matters in my previous life, as it were. Liability is salient to this Bill. The Government have acknowledged that in what they have said and in the changes they have already made as a result of our consideration in Committee.
I pay tribute to the new Minister for the work he has done on this. It is right to say that he is continuing discussions with the industry. As the hon. Lady said, there is a fragility about the industry. That is not to say that it is not successful, growing or doing wonderful things, but when one innovates or is on the margins of innovation, as this industry is bound to be, given that it is pushing the frontiers ever further, of course one is in a risky business. To gain the necessary investment to make that innovation happen and to take on board those risks, one needs to create a framework of certainty, and the certainty is to some degree about liability.
If I may say so, though, there is a simpler way to deal with the hon. Lady’s points. As I said, I shall be brief. I notice that the Government have already made changes to clause 35(3), where the word “may” has been changed to “must”. They could make similar changes to clause 34(5). Were the Government obliged to make regulations to deal with liability, I think that would go a long way towards satisfying the hon. Lady. I have sufficient trust in the Minister and his Department to know that even with the word “may” in the provision, it is likely that, following the discussions that he and others are having with the industry, further regulations will be introduced for the very reasons the hon. Lady set out in a measured and moderate way.
It is vital that we create the investor confidence that will allow the industry to grow and, as I have said, push forward the frontiers of technology in what is necessarily a risky business. This can be a great success and the Bill takes us a long way towards enabling that success. To get the issue of liability right will be the icing on the cake, but as everyone who has ever dressed or consumed a cake knows, the icing is vital—it is what draws us in, encourages and seduces us to consume the cake. With that overture, I hope that the Minister can provide the reassurance that the industry and I seek and that on that basis the hon. Lady might see fit to withdraw her new clause, although that is a matter not for me but very much for her.
Layla Moran
I rise to speak briefly to amendments 1, 2 and 3.
Amendment 1 deals with the catch-all powers in the Bill and, at your discretion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to press it to a vote. In the House of Lords, the Government agreed to remove the Henry VIII power from the Bill in response to concerns expressed by my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place and by Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. However, there is still a need to go further to tackle the Government’s power grab.
Several stakeholders have expressed concerns about the Bill’s skeletal nature. In particular, the House of Lords Constitution Committee said that some of the powers in the Bill were “very broad” and that the Bill would be
“challenging for Parliament to scrutinise meaningfully”
because so many of its powers were delegated to Ministers. That Committee also expressed concerns about a power in clause 68 that allows Ministers to make regulations but which might prevent people from being able to take the Government to court for judicial review because the Government could easily argue that their powers were within the Bill’s scope. The power permits the Government to make almost any law relating to
“space activities…sub-orbital activities, and…associated activities …carried out in the United Kingdom.”
That covers pretty much anything to do with the industry.
In response to the raising of such concerns in the other place, the Government suggested that there was no need for concern and, according to Baroness Sugg, that the powers were needed to
“deal with any unexpected circumstances.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 2017; Vol. 787, c. 613.]
I am afraid that that is not good enough. Liberal Democrats remain concerned that the scope of clause 68 is far too wide. We believe that, if the Government are not willing to remove the power or to limit its scope, it is only right and proper to increase parliamentary scrutiny of legislation passed under the power, which is why I shall seek to divide the House on amendment 1, which would require any new secondary legislation passed using clause 68 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Mr John Hayes
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but she must know that a Bill of this type essentially establishes what I called earlier a framework of certainty. This is a highly innovative industry and technology changes very rapidly. To be prescriptive about what the future might look like would be a woeful error. There has to be a degree of flexibility in the Bill, which she risks limiting by being prescriptive at this stage.
Layla Moran
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I disagree that the amendment would prevent innovation. I think it would be absolutely fine. The affirmative procedure is employed in 13 other parts of the Bill. Parliamentary scrutiny should not just be waved away, as it has been in other Bills. All we are asking for is the affirmative procedure, which would allow Parliament to scrutinise regulations that little bit more.
Karl Turner
I rise to speak to amendment 4, which I tabled, as well as the remaining new clauses and amendments.
Amendment 4 would give clarity to the UK’s space industry. As it stands, the Bill makes no provision to ensure that the industry works with the Government to create the regulatory framework that it so badly needs. The amendment would increase the focus on making the UK commercially attractive for potential spaceflight operators. As with new clause 3, the amendment was tabled to press the Government to publish clear regulations for the UK space industry, which is one of the Bill’s key issues.
Under the amendment, the Secretary of State would have to publish guidance for any forthcoming regulations and hold regular discussions with any potential operator before a licence was issued. The UK’s space industry needs as much clarity as possible; we do not want further uncertainty that may hinder growth. If the Government do not get this right, they could quite possibly deter investment, recruitment and growth in the space sector. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s views.
Labour Members generally support the aims of new clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). The Bill does not set out the criteria for awarding licences, and nor does it describe the procedures in any great detail, which is a problem. When I spoke to new clause 2, I alluded to the fact that Labour wants the UK space industry to grow in the coming years, but the Government need to get this legislation right and have had the opportunity to do so. The industry must be made aware of regulations. We agree that the Government should lay a report before Parliament setting out the proposed licensing regulations in detail. That is fair and reasonable.
On new clause 3(3), Labour tabled an amendment in Committee that would have ensured that if space activities were established in any of the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, their respective environmental agencies and bodies, and respective Governments, would be consulted before any decision was made to grant an operator licence in their jurisdictions. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated, so I welcome new clause 3, which presses the issue a little further.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire also tabled new clause 4, which deals with the liability issue that came up time and again in Committee.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
There are 40,000 jobs in the UK space industry. Would it not deter investment if the Government did not implement a liability cap for the industry?
Karl Turner
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right to say that 40,000 jobs rely on such a measure. Colleagues on both sides of the House have made the point that investment may be deterred if that is not in place.
New clause 4 deals with this very important issue of liability. The issue has been raised at every stage of the Bill’s consideration, both here and in the other place. Labour broadly supports the Bill, as we have reiterated throughout its passage, because we want the industry to grow so that high-skilled, high-paid and secure work is created across the country. Labour previously tabled amendments to get a discussion going about a liability cap. My colleagues in the other place tabled an amendment that would have removed any cap on a licensee’s liability, but that was merely a probing amendment with the intention of grabbing the Government’s attention so that they would seriously consider providing a definite liability cap in primary legislation. I am grateful to my colleagues in the other place for the work that they did. As I said in Committee, we were never opposed to a cap; we just wanted some clarity from the Government, as they must get this right. I think it fair to say that the Government have listened carefully to the points we made in Committee.
The UK space sector has made repeated representations to the Government that they should implement a cap for UK-licensed satellite launch operators. Britain’s space industry wants the Government to introduce a cap, I think at around €60 million. The Bill makes no mention of that, apart from the vague and lax use of the word “may”, which has now been amended to “must”. We are aware, however, that the Government stated previously—I think in Committee—that they opposed writing into legislation a mandatory cap on liability, as well as mandatory compensation from the Government, because that might breach state aid rules. I would be really grateful to the Minister if he clarified this particular point.
The industry has maintained throughout that it would not be able to secure insurance without a benchmark liability figure. The ambiguity from the Government on this issue could put off potential investment in the industry, as we have already heard, and harm the growth that the Bill sets out to achieve.
Requiring the Government to consult on and set a mandatory cap on a licensee’s liability for each launch individually, as well as basing it on the classification type of each launch, is reasonable and fair. We believe that the Government need to look again at this, and I see that the Minister is taking note of what is being said.
I will speak very briefly to Liberal Democrat amendments 1 to 3. Amendment 1 would make regulations made under clause 68 subject to the affirmative procedure. In the other place, Labour colleagues worked on a cross-party basis, it is fair to say, in an attempt to ensure that a number of the regulations under the Bill would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Labour also tabled a similar amendment in Committee. We are grateful to the Government for listening and taking on board the concerns raised in the other place, and the Bill now ensures that there is enhanced scrutiny of regulations under the affirmative procedure, which I am very glad to see.
Amendments 2 and 3 to schedule 6 are about ensuring that the devolved Administrations are notified when an order is made to obtain rights over land. In Committee, Labour tabled an amendment to ensure that, before any decisions or notices were made, there would be consultation with not only the relevant environment agencies of the devolved Administrations, but the devolved Administrations themselves. I pressed that amendment to a Division because I did not think that the Government went anything like far enough to ensure that the devolved Administrations would be involved in the overall process. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated, but I hope that the Government have now fully appreciated its intent.
Joseph Johnson
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken to the measures tabled by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). In addition to new clause 3, she tabled new clause 4, which would introduce a mandatory requirement for the Government to lay a report before Parliament setting out their plans in relation to a cap on a licensee’s liabilities. The new clause would also mandate consultation with the devolved Administrations and UKspace, a trade association of the UK space industry. The Government have consistently listened to the industry’s concerns about liabilities, dating back to the early development of our policy by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), including with regard to the licensing of UK entities carrying out certain space activities and in the development of all the provisions in the Bill.
The Government are well aware that the main space launch nations, including France and the US, limit a launch operator’s liabilities in some form, which is why the Bill contains powers for certain liabilities to be capped in licence conditions by way of regulations. Having such powers enables the UK to compete on a level playing field and allows the Government to share the burden of liabilities with operators.
However, launch from the UK is a new activity, and we should cap a launch vehicle operator’s liability, and thereby confer contingent liability on the Government, only if there is clear evidence that that is necessary. It is therefore important that the Government are able first to gather such evidence. To do that, as has been highlighted in earlier stages of the passage of this Bill, we will undertake a call for evidence specifically on liability and insurance, and that will take place shortly after Royal Assent.
Alongside that, the UK Space Agency is already working on, and considering its approach towards, risk assessment, insurance and liability requirements for launch activities taking place from the UK. If, following that work and the call for evidence, a cap on the launch vehicle operator’s liability for launch activities taking place from the UK is deemed appropriate, a full consultation will take place, which will include the publication of Government proposals and draft regulations. As I have said, this will be an open and comprehensive consultation that will include the devolved Administrations. Any proposals outlined in such a consultation will be subject to compliance with relevant trading rules, whether they are EU state aid rules, or other rules applying after our exit from the European Union.
Mr John Hayes
It seems that the Minister has exceeded even my expectations. The big billing that I gave him was entirely justified, because he has addressed exactly the point that was made earlier: we need to know precisely what the circumstances are as launch facilities are developed. The combination of a call for evidence and a potential consultation seems to go a very, very long way towards what those who asked for further work on liability wanted to achieve. I am delighted to hear what he has said in his brief contribution.
Joseph Johnson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for the Government’s approach of gathering the evidence base in a call for evidence, and then, if necessary, holding a further consultation, particularly involving the devolved Administrations.
Carol Monaghan
Can the Minister offer any timeframe for the consultation and the ongoing process, because the industry would welcome that?
Joseph Johnson
The Government have committed to launch the call for evidence as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, which we hope will not be too long now. Should the evidence show that there is demand and a need for a liability cap of the kind that the hon. Lady has been describing, we will launch a formal consultation at that stage. That consultation will, properly, involve the devolved Administrations and others with interests in this matter.
Through amendment 4, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) rightly raises the importance of the timely provision of guidance to applicants for spaceflight operator licences, and the benefits of pre-application discussions between prospective applicants and the regulator. The Government fully recognise that all potential licence applicants under the Bill—spaceports, satellite operators, range control service providers and spaceflight operators—will need to understand the regulations and processes with which they will need to comply. I hope that my earlier responses to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who is speaking on behalf of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, have helped Members to understand the approach that we will be taking.
Pre-licence application discussions are already a key part of current Civil Aviation Authority and UK Space Agency licensing, and they will remain a central part of the process for licences under the Bill. Such discussions benefit prospective licence applicants and the regulator, because they help to build effective working relationships. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will be pleased to know that discussions of this sort are already under way with a number of interested companies.
Carol Monaghan
I am happy to withdraw new clause 3, so I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Cap on licensees’ liability limit
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament setting out plans for a cap on licensees’ liability.
(2) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on what an appropriate maximum limit would be on the amount of a licensee’s liability, and lay a report before Parliament setting this out.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must provide for, but is not limited to—
(a) a maximum limit on the amount of a particular licensee’s liability for each launch undertaken by the operator;
(b) a maximum limit on the amount of licensees’ liability for each launch classification type;
(c) divisions of responsibility and the level of liability for parties’ spaceflight activities, including—
(i) the Spaceport;
(ii) the launch operator; and
(iii) the satellite operator.
(4) In subsection (3) “launch classification type” means the level of risk attached to each type of launch as determined by the regulator.
(5) Before exercising their duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive and have regard to their views in respect of any proposed regulations.
(6) As well as consulting those under subsection (5) the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) UKspace, and
(b) any other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Government to consult on and set a mandatory cap on licensees’ liability for each individual launch, based on the classification type of each launch.—(Carol Monaghan.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Space Industry Bill is a bold and important Bill that will ensure that the UK space sector is at the vanguard of the new commercial space age that is now under way. The UK has always been at the forefront of space discovery and technology. We were the third country to successfully operate a satellite and the sixth to launch a satellite into space on our own launch vehicle. We were a founding member of the European Space Agency and a key player in its most exciting and pioneering missions of science and discovery. We pioneered small, low-cost satellite technology that is revolutionising the global space economy, and we continue to develop technical and commercial innovations that will shape the global space economy for decades to come.
Accessing space is one area in which the UK has not yet had an opportunity to excel, as there has been no market to deliver the services on a truly commercial basis—that is until now. The UK today stands at the dawn of a new commercial space age. This presents us with a huge opportunity. Not only has the surge in small satellite launch demand created a global launch market that is forecast to be worth more than £10 billion over the next 10 years, but direct domestic access to space will reduce our dependency on foreign launch services, fix the fracture in the UK’s space value chain, enable the development of national expertise and employment opportunities and allow the UK to compete for commercial and strategic opportunities for decades to come.
It has been a great privilege to witness Members of both Houses being enthused and engaged by the Bill and its power to unlock the potential of an entire industry. The approach to the Bill in both Houses has been constructive, creative and collegiate. Indeed, in the best tradition of pioneering space missions, it has inspired collaboration, not contest, at all stages of development and debate. That is testament to the importance of our shared ambition.
I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who played such an important part in the development of the legislation. Is it any wonder that he is the Conservative MP with the highest vote share in the House? I express thanks to both Houses for well-informed debate, careful consideration and willing commitment to work quickly on this important enabling legislation. I also thank all the Committee members and those who have taken part in debates, including today’s.
Finally, I pay tribute to an example of true cross-Whitehall collaboration. The Department for Transport, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the UK Space Agency, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Health and Safety Executive have all played an integral part in developing this important legislation.
We are at the dawn of a new commercial space age. Our scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs are ready to pursue this opportunity and to reach higher and farther than they ever have before. The Bill will equip them with the most modern space industry legislation anywhere on Earth and ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of the space economy for generations to come. I commend it to the House.
Karl Turner
I thank the Government Front-Bench team for the spirit of co-operation in which the Bill has been handled, and I thank the Minister’s officials, who have worked very hard on it as well. I also thank my colleagues in the other place, where the Bill began, for their very valuable work. They secured a number of important concessions, including the removal of Henry VIII powers, and pressed the Government to introduce a new clause on environmental issues, all of which improved the Bill immensely. It meant that when the Bill came here it was in a much better condition than when it began. I also thank Members who helped to scrutinise the Bill in Committee and those who have made contributions today.
The Minister has said this, as have Members time and again throughout the passage of the Bill: the UK space industry is an important, growing part of our economy. It was valued at £13.7 billion in 2014-15 and supports almost 40,000 jobs. The Bill will establish a licensing regime for spaceports, space flights and satellite launches, which is currently missing from the statute book, and put in place a regulatory framework to allow the further expansion of the industry. For that reason, the Opposition support and welcome the Bill.
Carol Monaghan
First, I would like to thank the Minister, who has moved seamlessly from his previous role into this new role and is not too far away from where he was a few months ago. I also thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) for the work he has done.
It is a nice coincidence, I suppose, that SpaceX will be launching the Falcon Heavy rocket from the Kennedy Space Centre in the next couple of hours. It is the largest rocket ever to be launched and could pave the way for travel to Mars. This is the inspirational industry that we all want to be part of, and for that reason there has been great cross-party support for, and consensus around, the Bill.
The idea of spaceports in the UK is potentially exciting, but it needs investment from both the Government and private industry, and I hope that parts of the Bill will draw down some of that investment. I am pleased that many of the potential sites for spaceports are in Scotland, but I am disappointed that the Government chose not to support new clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). It would have strengthened the Bill and provided the assurances the industry was calling for. I hope that the cap will be put in place, and quickly, to generate future investment possibilities for the industry.
I want to place on the record the three satellite companies currently manufacturing satellites in Glasgow: Clyde Space, Spire and Alba Orbital. Between them, they ensure that Glasgow is second only to San Francisco, worldwide, for the production of CubeSats. We very much want to support this industry, and it would be great to see these Glasgow-built satellites, manufactured very close to the Clyde—they are all within half a mile of the Clyde—actually being launched. “Clyde built” used to be an indication of quality. Let us hope it is for these new spaceships.
The Bill will, of course, need collaboration between the Scottish and UK Governments, as well as cross-party support, which it has had generally, and I look forward to seeing it strengthened after the consultation process that the Minister described this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Space Industry Bill [HL]
Tuesday 27th February 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Space Industry Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 6 February 2018 - (6 Feb 2018)
Baroness Sugg
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 5.
“Grant of licences: assessments of environmental effects
(1) This section applies to—(a) a spaceport licence;(b) an operator licence authorising launches of spacecraft or carrier aircraft.(2) The regulator may not grant an application for a licence to which this section applies unless the applicant has submitted an assessment of environmental effects.(3) In this section “assessment of environmental effects”—(a) in relation to a spaceport licence, means an assessment of the effects that launches of spacecraft or carrier aircraft from the spaceport in question, or from launches of spacecraft from carrier aircraft launched from the spaceport, are expected to have on the environment;(b) in relation to an operator licence authorising launches of spacecraft or carrier aircraft, means an assessment of the effects that those launches are expected to have on the environment.(4) If or to the extent that the regulator directs, the requirement imposed by subsection (2) to submit an assessment of environmental effects may be met by submitting—(a) an equivalent assessment prepared previously in compliance with a requirement imposed by or under another enactment, or(b) an assessment of environmental effects prepared in connection with a previous application. The regulator may make a direction under this subsection only if satisfied that there has been no material change of circumstances since the previous assessment was prepared.(5) The regulator must take into account the assessment of environmental effects (including any assessment submitted as mentioned in subsection (4)) in deciding—(a) whether to grant a licence to which this section applies;(b) what conditions should be attached to such a licence under section 12.(6) The regulator must issue guidance about—(a) the form, contents and level of detail of an assessment of environmental effects;(b) the time for submitting an assessment of environmental effects;(c) the circumstances in which the regulator will or may give a direction under subsection (4).Guidance under paragraph (a) may specify matters that are to be dealt with in an assessment of environmental effects only if the regulator so requires in a particular case.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, these amendments cover issues debated during the passage of the Bill through both Houses.
I know noble Lords will agree that the Space Industry Bill is an important step to ensure that the UK space sector is at the forefront of a new commercial space age. It is important that our scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs are equipped to take advantage of this opportunity.
On Amendment 1, noble Lords may recall our useful debates on the requirement for environmental protection to be set out in the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their valuable contributions to this debate. These debates resulted in an additional licence condition being inserted into Schedule 1, enabling the regulator to require an assessment from an applicant of the impact noise and emissions are expected to have on the local community. Noble Lords did not consider that this amendment alone went far enough to afford the environmental protection to which spaceflight activities ought to be subject. On Report, I committed to the Government tabling a further amendment in the other place to address this. I am pleased to report that such an amendment has been inserted into the Bill by way of a new Clause 11. Amendment 1 places a mandatory requirement on an applicant for either a launch or a spaceport licence to submit an assessment of the environmental effects of their proposed activity. The regulator must take the assessment into account before a licence is granted. I hope noble Lords will agree that the amendment provides robust environmental protection in the Bill as requested.
I turn to Amendments 2 to 5, which also reflect a commitment I made on Report to ensure that the uninvolved general public have easy recourse to compensation if something goes wrong. This followed a helpful debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for leading the way on this issue and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his support of it. As highlighted throughout the passage of the Bill, safety is our priority. The provisions are designed to ensure that spaceflight activity is as safe as possible and that risks to third parties are minimised. However, where injury or damage occurs, third parties should have easy recourse to compensation; this remains the case even when an operator’s liability to third parties is capped. These amendments turn the discretionary power in what is now Clause 35(3) into a duty. This means that if an operator’s liability is capped under Clause 35, the Government are required to pay compensation to the public for any claims for injury or damage above the capped amount.
I hope noble Lords will agree to support the Motion to approve these Commons amendments, which reflect commitments I made during our discussions on the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, I am particularly pleased to see Amendment 1. The Minister gave those assurances during the debate and we tabled an amendment relating to the need to take environmental considerations into account. I recall saying at the time that one has to think of the impact on local people; just because it is exciting and being done in rural areas does not mean that we can ignore the impact on the environment. A great deal was made of the rurality of these space sites and it strikes me that the noise, road closures and impact of heavy vehicles will be of more concern in rural areas than they would if it was being done in an urban area, which of course cannot be the case here. As with any building works in previously greenfield sites, there will be a huge impact and I am reassured that the Government have now taken this rather more appropriately into account.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may cover the other amendments to which the Minister referred. I welcome what the Government have done; she promised to do it and she has, and for that we are very grateful.
This gives me an opportunity to repair an omission from our earlier debates. These were much dominated by the prospect of the Moynihan international spaceport up at Prestwick—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is not in his place at the moment—but I saw something a few days ago that took me back to my youth, if not to my childhood. It was the name Goonhilly hitting the headlines, with the fact that there is to be an £8.4 million investment by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly local enterprise partnership to upgrade Goonhilly Downs. I can still hear “Telstar” in my head as I think of the way Goonhilly captured the imagination of the world many years ago. It is good to know that Cornwall Airport Newquay is also an active bidder for the idea of being one of these new spaceports.
The other factor to bring to mind is that the UK Space Agency says that the global market for space is expected to increase from £155 billion per year to £400 billion by 2030. Although sometimes during the debate in both Houses there was a feeling that these matters are a long way away, they are really just around the corner, and the activities of people such as Elon Musk are proving that to be so. That is why this amendment is so important. We have to give people the assurance that if they go into this exciting new industry, they will not be left with unlimited liabilities, and that public safety will be adequately covered. By her action, the Minister has made sure that the industry is investment-friendly, and that is all to the good.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we raised the issues covered by these amendments in the Lords, and the Minister assured the House that changes would be brought forward in the other place to address those concerns. We are pleased the Government have delivered on those assurances and warmly welcome the amendments. During the passage of the Bill, I referred to early aviation legislation and its failure to envisage the growth of that industry or the impact it would have on our future. These amendments are vital to ensuring that we look not only at the needs of the industry but at the impact it will have on the environment and, importantly, surrounding communities.
When we began the Bill, there was not a huge amount of reference to the environment in it and—as the Minister no doubt finds it hard to forget—there was no mention at all of the word “noise”. We have come a good way since then. The new clause ensures that the impact the project will have on the environment is put front and centre as part of the application process and will be duly taken into account by the regulator. We welcome this and put on record our hopes and expectations that this will be a rigorous part of the application process.
The amendments to Clause 34 will ensure that the uninvolved general public—those of us who are not planning to launch into space any time soon—are fully protected if a catastrophic incident occurs and causes damage. It is right and proper that the Government have afforded their citizens that protection. We thank the Government for listening and acting on our concerns.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords for participating in this short debate and for their support for the amendments to the Bill. Indeed, this cross-party support has been clear during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House. As ever, the scrutiny and analysis of noble Lords has improved the Bill.
The Bill will deliver on the Government’s ambition to take the UK into the commercial space age by enabling small satellite launch and suborbital spaceflight from UK spaceports, whether it be the Moynihan Prestwick one or the McNally Newquay one, as we might now call it. There is no shortage of ambition in the UK, with a number of potential spaceports and launch companies developing plans to offer UK launch services. The Bill provides the modern regulatory framework needed to enable this exciting and empowering opportunity for our thriving space sector, but also addresses the important concerns around the environment and communities. This will help ensure that the UK is one of the best places to start, grow and invest in space businesses.
Baroness Sugg
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 6.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, this amendment removes the privilege amendment and is a procedural technicality. I beg to move.
Royal Assent
Thursday 15th March 2018
(6 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 February 2018 - (21 Feb 2018)