Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
Friday 4th July 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberSpace Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2024-26 View all Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I will start with a short summary of the Bill. Which will amend two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the Act. The reason for that is that under international law applicable to space, Governments including the UK are liable for damage to property or death or personal injury caused by space activities. Section 36 passes on that liability to spaceflight operators and requires them to indemnify the Government. Without legal certainty over a cap, much-needed investment in the UK space industry, which is critical for defence and civilian purposes, will be held back, and that investment will go elsewhere. That is the purpose of the Bill: to encourage vital investment in our space sector, of which we should be proud.
I realise that parliamentarians in this place have not always been enthusiastic about space. When the Soviet spacecraft Luna 2 reached the surface of the moon on 13 September 1959, the Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd, who went on to be a Speaker of this place, reacted with great enthusiasm. He said:
“I don’t think many people are terribly interested in the Russian rocket”,
despite it being historic. Harold Macmillan, on the other hand, was much more enthusiastic. When Armstrong and Aldrin were waiting in the lunar module, and we had had a man on the moon, Harold Wilson said:
“We must all be filled with a profound sense of wonder and admiration in witnessing this historic event.”
In fact, the UK played an important role in that space mission, and UK industry was involved, too. There was somewhat of a stooshie—a Scots word for a row—about the failure of the British ambassador to attend the launch, and his letter in the National Archives explains why. His explanation basically boils down to the fact that he had been to one previously, and that once you have seen one space launch, you have seen them all. It just goes to show that the importance of the special relationship is nothing new, but it did cause somewhat of a stooshie. Of course, nothing in 1969 was as important as Newcastle United winning the Inter-Cities Fairs cup.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
My hon. Friend just talked about the importance of the space sector to so many of us and, indeed, to the whole of the UK. Will he join me in welcoming this Labour UK Government’s investment in the space sector in Scotland?
John Grady
Yes. The UK Government have invested in Orbex, in Forres in the north of Scotland. It remains important to give grants to earlier-stage companies because they cannot get the equity and debt funding that more advanced companies can, so I welcome that important investment.
The space sector and satellites are central to almost everyone’s day-to-day lives. When we tap in and out of the underground on the way home or when we purchase things, that relies on satellite technology. Space is also a key focus for the national wealth fund, as confirmed by Lord Livermore, who is Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and John Flint, the chief executive of the national wealth fund, when we discussed the fund at the Treasury Committee this week. Space is an important future business for Britain, and an important economic opportunity.
Another reason why it is important to invest in space is for defence—it is critical to the defence of the United Kingdom. If we have a vibrant space industry in the United Kingdom, that will support the technological innovation we need to defend our country and our allies as we move into a much more difficult foreign policy context.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware of the role that the Starlink system has played in Ukraine in enabling the frontline operations of the Ukrainian army. For a very long time, GPS was the main determinator of whether Trident could arrive at its destination. It strikes me that in some ways the technology, our ability to put things into space and what we are putting up there will be what absolutely determines the nature of warfare in the 21st century; does my hon. Friend agree?
John Grady
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The UK Government have committed to investing in defence and in advances in tech defence. As we develop defence, investing in space is utterly critical and central to that. It is a matter of some regret that Scottish companies that invest in military matters are not funded by the Scottish National Investment Bank or Scottish Enterprise, because they have the view that we should not invest in defence, even though it will create jobs and is important for defending the north of Scotland, which is where my mother came from and which is now very important for defence.
I am an MP for Glasgow, which has a rich history of innovation and an incredibly promising cluster of space expertise. My seat has the fantastic University of Strathclyde. I recently met Professor Malcolm Macdonald from the university, who is the director of the centre for signal and image processing and the applied space technology laboratory. He outlined to me with great enthusiasm and knowledge the amount of innovation in the space sector in Glasgow and across the United Kingdom. This is a critical industry that we must invest in and for which we must create the conditions of investment. Around 52,000 people work in the space sector across the UK, so this is a big opportunity.
Let me turn to talk about precisely what the Bill does, albeit with four words: it seeks to limit space operators’ liability. I emphasise that spaceflight activities are heavily regulated by the UK Civil Aviation Authority for safety. There is day-to-day scrutiny of their safety from an expert safety regulator—the CAA is one of the best regulators in the world—so we are concerned with small risks that are reduced to the very minimum extent possible by a very strong regulatory regime. One of the reasons why our family of nations has a great advantage in space is that because we are right at the end of Europe, we have a great place to launch, because we do not launch over big urban areas. If we go right up to Shetland, there is nothing for hundreds of miles.
There are treaties under international space law, and the UK Government have a long-standing legal liability for damage caused by UK spaceflight-related operations. Despite the space safety regime, there is a residual risk that things go wrong and the UK Government face claims. The UK Government can make claims against operators, which take place under section 36 of the 2018 Act. That is quite proper. Operators have to assume and bear risk, and the Government need to ensure that operators can pay out on claims made against them—as we are quite rightly adopting a cross-party spirit today, I commend the previous Government on their work on space law—which is why the regime under the 2018 Act makes provisions for space operators to put in place compulsory insurance.
The businesses have to insure themselves and are regulated by a very competent regulator. The question is: what happens if a claim exceeds the amount of insurance that can be put in place on a sensible basis? That is really what we are addressing here. The current legislation does not require the Civil Aviation Authority or the Government to include a cap in the licence; it makes it optional. Section 12(2) of the 2018 Act provides:
“An operator licence may specify a limit on the amount of the licensee's liability under section 36 in respect of the activities authorised by the licence.”
The critical thing that my Bill will do is quite simply to swap “may” for “must”, and as a consequence the word “any” in section 36 is changed to “the”. That is consistent with long-standing Government policy that the liability should be limited—there is a clear, documented policy that it is limited.
However, the problem with documented policies as opposed to statute—as a recovering lawyer, I go back to my legal career here—is that Government policies are ultimately much easier to change than statutes. We can have a claim for legitimate expectations and a breach of those, but that is a very difficult class of claim to run, and there has not been a huge number of successful cases of that sort in the courts. It is a difficult area of public law.
Business quite properly says, “You could change this policy and expose our existing investments to additional risk.” Business could also fairly go and look elsewhere for investment. Investors will not invest in the same way in the face of a lack of statutory protection, so the critical thing the Bill does is to include a statutory protection. It requires the Government to cap the liability and encourages people to invest, and that puts us on a par with our principal competitor nations for space investment. So, four words to the Bill, with two swapped, but it is absolutely critical for the future of an industry that could be brilliant for the United Kingdom and all our constituents for years to come.
Melanie Ward
Does my hon. Friend agree that the space sector gives our country—and indeed to the world—a sense of possibility and innovation? He talks about the four words in the Bill—Buzz Lightyear provides us with another four words to take inspiration from: “To infinity and beyond!”
John Grady
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as she does regularly. The space sector creates enthusiasm for young people. When I met young students at the University of Strathclyde, I could see that it had engendered excitement about the future, and that is a good thing.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I speak on this Bill as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) on having such a massive effect on the UK space industry by changing just two words in the Space Industry Act 2018. His Bill is perhaps one of the most sublime Bills relating to the space sector that I have seen. It is truly incredible that we can have such a change to our industry.
We have had a space sector in this country for many years and it has been quite successful. As we have heard, it is currently worth about £19 billion a year and employs about 52,000 people, but the sector’s potential is absolutely enormous. The expectation is that, by 2035, the global space sector will be worth £1.8 trillion, and it is the ambition of this country at some point to get about 10% of that sector. That would be £180 billion a year of economic activity, so it is incredibly important.
The hon. Gentleman made important points about the space sector and all the exciting things we can do beyond the Kármán line in space. Importantly for those Scottish Members present, we will see the most symbolic part of the space sector to the north of Unst in the Shetland islands, hopefully before the year is out: a launch from British soil. That is genuinely very exciting.
Our whole economy can benefit. The hon. Gentleman is helping to open up an opportunity for the City of London, which for a long time has been a financer of innovation, trade and many different things. Importantly, it has been one of the biggest wholesale and specialist insurance markets in the world. By changing two words in the 2018 Act, the hon. Gentleman is not only unleashing spaceflight licensing for the UK but unleashing yet more opportunity at Lloyd’s of London. On top of that, as we see more space businesses coming to locate in the UK because of that opportunity, we will see even more opportunities, such as space companies being listed on the London stock exchange, bond issues and a whole load of corporate finance activities. Beyond that, there will be yet more activity in the legal sector, for example. The Bill is therefore incredibly important. The hon. Gentleman has done something incredibly simple but incredibly important, and all in the space sector are incredibly grateful.
I have a small anecdote about Buzz Lightyear—we heard mention of his catchphrase, “To infinity and beyond!” I met Buzz Aldrin’s son a few years ago and made a joke about “To infinity and beyond” to him, and he turned around to me and said, “The Disney corporation never paid my dad enough for that.”
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill. It will be truly transformational.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for bringing the Bill forward. I also thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for chairing the all-party parliamentary group for space and for his promotion of the sector.
As the MP for Portsmouth North, I strongly support this pivotal Bill, which will unlock further growth in our already thriving regional space cluster. It will ensure that operators take responsibility but, critically, that their liability is limited. As we heard from my hon. Friend, that statutory provision will bring us in line with our competitors.
Portsmouth and the wider Hampshire region are increasingly central to the UK’s space ambitions. Through initiatives such as Space South Central, we are part of the largest regional space cluster in the country, which generates more than £3 billion annually and employs more than 5,600 people. In Portsmouth, our universities, small and medium-sized enterprises and global industry leaders work in close partnership to pioneer satellite applications, mission design and advanced technologies.
The Bill’s provision to offer limited Government indemnity to commercial launch providers is critical. It will lower barriers to entry, de-risk new ventures, attract investment and enable orbital missions from UK soil. That is not just theoretical; it has real implications for Portsmouth’s space sector.
Let me highlight some of the potential beneficiaries in my city. The University of Portsmouth’s Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation is actively designing small satellite missions, from Earth observation CubeSats to lunar radio probes. Its space mission incubator and CosmoCube projects are prime examples of innovation that stands to gain from accelerated launch capabilities. The university also hosts the South Coast Centre of Excellence in Satellite Applications—part of the Satellite Applications Catapult, which supports businesses in satellite development, data-driven services and AI applications. The indemnity will provide confidence to those SMEs entering into new orbit ventures.
In the private sector, global giants such as Airbus Defence and Space operate from Portsmouth’s Hilsea facility. Its multimillion-pound Oberon reconnaissance satellite contract with the Ministry of Defence sustains 1,000 local jobs—roles that will be bolstered by a more robust UK space launch ecosystem. It also provides fantastic apprenticeship opportunities for young people.
Hampshire-based firms such as QinetiQ, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Airbus are deeply integrated into space innovation and, locally, into our communities. With the Bill’s indemnity framework, these organisations—universities and companies alike—will gain access to faster mission approvals and greater capacity to adopt emerging UK launch providers, with results including new jobs, expanded contracts, strengthened regional growth and a win for my city.
Let us consider the Bill’s impact. More research-led satellites such as CosmoCube could be developed and launched from Cornwall or Scotland, but Portsmouth businesses will be able to contribute all the way from design to orbit. Portsmouth’s science, technology, engineering and maths pipeline, from UTC Portsmouth through to the university’s Mission Space programme, will benefit enormously from real, home-grown launch activity. That will inspire students, help retain talent and create new high-tech career paths. Charities and public services will also benefit. Space-enabled monitoring applications powered by data from low-cost satellites could support coastal management, environmental protection and emergency response in my maritime city.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the charity that I am a trustee of, STEMunity, which had a fantastic reception this week and, by working with a number of other charities and public and private sector companies, has introduced young people to the world of space.
This is not just a technical fix of four words; it is a strategic piece of legislation that can help cement Portsmouth’s place in the UK space age—and, indeed, the UK in the world—by reducing risk for our inventors.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for bringing forward this important Bill. It is fantastic to see space made in today’s programme to debate it. Many of the contributions have been out of this world. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill is a timely and necessary measure to sharpen the UK’s competitive edge in what is undoubtedly one of the most strategically important domains of our time. Having almost completed my first year on the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand that our security relies not only on land, sea and air, but increasingly on the space domain and our assets in orbit. Satellite communications, Earth observation and precise navigation form the backbone of military operations, but also of our civil economy—I will come back to that later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) pointed out in his intervention, any disruption up there has immediate and profound consequences to operations down here. We know at first hand that China and other nations are taking leaps and bounds in its drive to dominate the space domain, so anything we can do to strengthen the UK space economy is critical.
Before coming to this House, I was very fortunate that my team supported clients such as Defence Equipment & Support in negotiations around the space domain, in particular providing better commercial and buying support, which is critical, so I have seen at first hand the complexity of this emerging market, and how the public sector needs to keep up to date and respond to the demands and the asks of the private sector, and drive growth.
Just down the road from me in Harwell, a project completed by my former firm in 2023, the National Satellite Test Facility, received £120 million of new investment by the public sector through the Science and Facilities Technology Council. That shows that when we unlock investment, it is not just about the assets that end up in space, but about the big, chunky, complex engineering construction opportunities that are opened up in places such as the OxCam corridor, where my constituency sits. Through that work, I have seen how the private sector is poised and hungry to drive forward the next wave of space innovation. What is holding us back, generally, is not technology, talent, innovation or the drive for growth, but regulatory uncertainty. Despite the fact that the Bill relates to only four words, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, it will make a big difference.
The Space Industry Act 2018 laid the groundwork for the modern commercial sector we have in space. I commend the previous Government, as we are debating in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation across the House, for their work on that and for the space industrial strategy, which was published later. I can see echoes of that now in the industrial strategy, and I know that when the defence industrial strategy comes out later in the year, space will be front and centre of that as well. It is positive that we can build on some of the good work done by the Conservatives.
Without knowing what financial exposure firms might face if an accident or an incident occurs, companies hesitate to invest, insurers demand eye-watering premiums, and ultimately, we lose manufacturing contracts to other jurisdictions. The simple but powerful adjustment made by the Bill changes the law so that the indemnity limit for each operator licence is not optional, but mandatory. Each licence must spell out the licensee’s maximum liabilities. This is an essential risk management mechanism and it means that companies know exactly what they are signing up for. It also allows them to secure insurance in a predictable way. In the construction sector, we had a lot of unpredictable insurance post-Grenfell and particularly post-industrial shock, so I know how, for a commercial business, insecure insurance and unpredictability of insurance is important.
The Government’s new industrial strategy is really positive for the space sector. In my constituency, the Bill will stimulate jobs and growth. It specifically recognises that the Government will be investing in research and development for the space industry through the Cambridge Growth Company, which will drive new opportunities for my constituents.
When we consider this issue, we must also remember the wider stakes.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech on space. I must declare that I prefer to have my feet firmly on planet Earth, but none the less I am enjoying his contribution. I have been advised that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. Where does my hon. Friend think those on the second Opposition Bench are from?
Mike Reader
I am sure they are working hard in their constituencies right now.
Mike Reader
Where they are from, I do not know, but I am sure they are working hard in their constituencies right now. I will keep the collegiate relationship we have here today, but I thank my hon. Friend for that comment.
I was talking about international impacts. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international trade and investment, I think the Bill is a very positive step forward to help drive investment. As we see countries such as the US, Luxembourg, Australia and Japan change their regulatory regimes, we need to keep that front and centre.
I did say I would briefly mention the civil economy, as we have a Minister from the Department here today. Regulatory certainty matters. I see that the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill is coming forward, but I note that the fuel strategy is also very important. One in five of my constituents work in logistics, so it is critical that we see certainty in all sectors of the Department for Transport.
I will conclude by saying this. Space is no longer the preserve of big Government agencies alone. We see a lot of innovation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) said in relation to her constituency, there is fierce commercial competition and a lot of opportunity. The Bill will ensure that, whether we are exploring near space, planets, exoplanets, exomoons or even going out further into space, we support the British economy and get the space industry growing.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I will try to keep my remarks brief. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) on making many fine contributions today and still managing to find time to pass his own Bill.
This is an area of personal interest to me. I made the terrible choice 20 years ago to go into politics, but most of my family are scientists. My grandfather was Professor Sir Robert Boyd, who is often described as the father of British space science. My dad still works in the sector. The pace at which the industry is progressing is quite remarkable. When SpaceX and Virgin Galactic first came out, I thought to myself, “How on earth are these companies going to make any money at all?” But they could certainly see the future in all of this. As has been set out, the opportunities presented by space are vast, and legislation needs to keep pace.
Ultimately, it is a question of risk. Risk will always be part of the process, as it is in every part of life. It is perfectly possible to manage it in a way that makes it viable to undertake various activities. The Bill, in its four words, sets out to resolve that, addressing liability and insurance issues to enable the viability of the UK’s space industry, which surely will be seen as a vital area of economic growth in times to follow, and of national security, as has been discussed.
No doubt, the discussion of risks may arouse concern from the general public, but for the average person, the risks are vanishingly low. Most objects sent up into space are far too small to survive re-entry. Frankly, huge satellites pose a far greater risk to each other now, through what is known as Kessler syndrome, where one knocks into another and that sets off a cascade that destroys all the satellites in lower orbit, making them completely unusable. The risk of an individual being hit by space debris is less than one in a trillion. Rockets can blow up—they are very similar to missiles—but they tend to be limited to a small range of places, which consistently are remote, and follow a path unlikely to pose a risk to people’s property.
The industry has to have an approach to risk, but from an individual perspective, we should not in any way be worried. As has been highlighted, the Civil Aviation Authority, which happens to be based in my constituency, plays a significant role in that. It does fine work in this area, in addition to general aviation. The Bill manages these risks well. It is a vital part of how to deliver an economy of the future for the UK, and I am delighted to support it.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak again on the Bill. It is a short Bill—it replaces just two words—but one with substantial implications. The meat of the Bill, if I can call it that, is to replace “may” with “must”.
I will briefly refer to some of the excellent contributions. I am relieved to have heard many fewer revolting puns than in previous debates on this subject; nevertheless, a couple slipped through. I start with the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), who set out the commercial need for the change to the Act. He made the sensible point that Government policy is easier to change than statute. If we were not sure of that before this week, one should just ask the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that it is easier to change policy than it is to change legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space, which makes him eminently well-qualified to speak in this debate. I was pondering my own qualifications, and the best I could come up with was that I played rugby for a team called the Space Cadets when I was at university. That is about as close as I could get to the space industry. My hon. Friend rightly made the case for a role for the City of London. He mentioned developing opportunities for Lloyds of London, listings, bond issuance and subsequent legal support. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) highlighted the role of Portsmouth and the wider Hampshire space cluster. She said that it was just four words that needed to be changed—in that sentence, she doubled the size of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) reflected on space developments in the context of defence, and on commercial opportunities being held back because of regulatory uncertainty. He was right to highlight that regulatory certainty matters. Finally, the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) said he was the grandson of the father of British space science, which presumably makes him the son of British space science.
We cannot complain about inadequate consideration of the Bill. The first attempt to enact the change was introduced by the former Member for Woking, Jonathan Lord, and we had a Second Reading of a very similarly worded Bill on 23 February 2024. Unfortunately, that Bill was lost in the parliamentary wash-up session, as a result of the general election being called later that year. I am pleased that the incoming Government have, through their inspirational Back Benchers, been able to introduce a private Member’s Bill in very similar terms.
Second Reading was quite a long time ago—back on 7 March this year—but since then, the Bill has been through Committee and undergone robust line-by-line consideration. I am pleased to report to the House that the word “must” has not been altered in Committee. I wonder whether “definitely should” or “really ought” was posited by Members, but, in the end, we have the same wording as on Second Reading. We now come to the remaining stages, no doubt to an enormous sigh of relief from the industry, and perhaps a little bit of frustration about why it has taken so long to change just two words in an Act that received Royal Assent back in 2018.
As a personal observation, I question whether the private Member’s Bill route is appropriate for legislation that has such significant commercial impact. The industry has been waiting. We have heard from speaker after speaker about the commercial importance of changing “may” to “must”, and yet it has taken seven years from identifying the original problem to effecting a solution. We need to really think about that, because this Bill is important and delay has had a cost.
The UK space industry generates £18.9 billion for our economy. There are at least 1,800 businesses involved in it, some 52,000 jobs are directly employed by the space industry and, with the supply chain, that number increases to 130,000. No doubt, those figures are out of date as it is a growing industry. We have strong demand for UK commercial spaceflight that led to the original regulatory benefit, arising out of our Brexit freedoms, to have a dynamic regulatory environment. It has given us a genuine economic commercial advantage over our European friends and neighbours, because we have been able to have a more dynamic approach to regulation.
However, that has been put at risk because of the difficulties in calculating potential liabilities. Others have already gone through the legal niceties of the Space Industry Act 2018, so I do not propose to go through those line by line as I would normally. Suffice it to say, the legal duty of a space operator is to provide insurance for their operations, and that is required under the Act. That brings a corollary obligation to make a calculation to potential exposure. If someone is making an actuarial calculation of the risk to which a client is exposing an insurer, they need to undertake a calculation of the scale—the quantum—of that risk.
This is where the regulatory uncertainty has played its part. Although it has been repeated in this Chamber and elsewhere that it is, and remains, Government policy to have an indemnity beyond a certain level of liability, the uncertainty is that the legislation does not require the Government to do that. Section 12(2) gives the Civil Aviation Authority—the regulatory authority in this case—power to set an upper limit to provide clarity. This Bill turns that power into an obligation, which is quite right.
We have had a fun debate and I am very pleased that the legislation is nearing the end of its legislative journey, but we collectively need to stop and think. This is an uncontroversial change, with cross-party support, supporting a growth industry, and yet it has taken five months to progress from Second Reading to the remaining stages. That is simply not good enough. We collectively need to think of a way in which we can get this kind of legislation accelerated.
Launches into space are never straightforward, and this Bill is no exception. It had an initial flare-out on its launchpad before the last general election, and since then it has had an excruciatingly slow reconstruction and review. But it is finally ready for launch, and I wish it well. I hope it releases many further launches across the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for promoting this short but important Bill. I wanted to get further into Newcastle United’s Inter-Cities Fairs cup win in 1969, but I do not think today is the day.
I thank all who have contributed to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for his chairmanship of the APPG for space. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and for Crawley (Peter Lamb). I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), for his support as well. He mentioned puns—I attempted a pun in the House the other day, and Mr Speaker reminded me to stick to the day job. I will not try to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South.
This industry is so important, and it will be going forward. It has already been said that it contributes £19 billion to the UK economy, and it is already employing 52,000 people right across our land. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s full support. We have economic growth at the heart of our agenda, and we are taking steps to support major infrastructure and to reduce bureaucratic red tape in regulatory frameworks to better support innovation and growth in the UK.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Minister talks about economic growth. I recently met a Mongolian lady working at the Satellite Applications Catapult, which exists to grow the UK space sector. We have heard about Buzz Aldrin and Buzz Lightyear—I am afraid I have a pun coming. With that in mind, will the Minister set out in further detail, perhaps at the Dispatch Box now, how he foresees the Bill giving the space sector the rocket boosters it needs to go to infinity and beyond?
Mike Kane
Today is 4 July and there will be fireworks across the pond, but we want rocket boosters under our space industry. Most of Europe is landlocked—or I should say space-locked—which provides the UK with a unique opportunity to be a launchpad for satellites produced all around Europe. That is the market that we are going for.
The industry has made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK spaceflight industry. If the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors might move to jurisdictions that have more favourable liability regimes where operator liability is limited, or that provide guarantees to meet all claims or those above the operator’s limit of liability, such as the US or France. For those reasons, we are pleased to support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With the leave of the House, I call John Grady to wind up.
John Grady
I will keep my remarks short. I thank all Members for their support today, on Second Reading and in Committee. I also thank the Department for Transport civil servants who assisted me. The Clerk of Private Members’ Bills puts in a lot of work to help us all with our Private Members’ Bills, and I give thanks to them as well.
This Bill will now go to another place, where Baroness Anelay of St Johns has kindly agreed to take it on, and I thank her for so doing. I should also thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who has been nothing but enthusiastic about this Bill from the off. It is good to hear enthusiasm, and speaking as a new Member—or a year-old Member—it is always very helpful to have advice from Members from across the Chamber.
Of course, I thank my team for their help with the Bill. I thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I also thank the voters and residents of Glasgow East, because it is a privilege to be here representing them. I love every minute of my time representing my seat.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.