Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to present this Bill to the House today. It was guided through the House of Commons by John Grady MP, whom I congratulate for his work, and it received cross-party support.

The Bill seeks to amend the 2018 Space Industry Act in a way that should strengthen investment in the UK’s space sector. This is important for both the economic growth and defence of the United Kingdom. The nub of the matter is that under the 2018 Act, anyone carrying out spaceflight activities must indemnify the Government or a list of bodies included in that Act. The uncertainty faced by potential investors is that the Act states that an operator licence “may” specify a limit on the amount of the licensee’s liability. That leaves potential investors not knowing whether there will be a cap to that. I understand that investors remain unwilling to invest in companies that hold unlimited liability. Changing that “may” to “must” is at the heart of today’s Bill.

The Bill would amend Sections 12 and 36 of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of an operator’s liability—under Section 36—thereby ensuring that operators are not exposed to unlimited liability. As a result of much hard work by my colleagues in Conservative Governments over recent years, and now Labour’s Government, and that of organisations such as the UK Space Agency, there is now agreement that we have a firm foundation for the development of the space industry.

There are currently two operational spaceports in the UK: Spaceport SaxaVord, in the Shetland Islands, which is licensed for vertical launches, and Spaceport Cornwall, which is licensed for horizontal satellite launch services. It is based on a site adjoining RAF St Mawgan near Newquay. The Spaceport Cornwall team is working closely with schools, colleges and higher education institutions across the region to build the skills base to meet the needs of the space industry. The Bill before us today should help to create economic growth, jobs and prosperity for decades to come across the UK, from Cornwall to Shetland.

The 2018 Act was introduced to enable space activities from UK spaceports, such as satellite launches and suborbital spaceflight. These activities require a spaceflight operator licence. International law places the responsibility for activities in outer space on states, not individuals. Launch states are liable for any damage caused on earth or to aircraft in flight. Damage caused by spaceflight activities could therefore result in claims against the UK Government. To alleviate that eventuality, Section 36 of the 2018 Act provides for spaceflight operators to indemnify the Government in certain circumstances, but the risk currently facing spaceflight operators is that the 2018 legislation does not require the Government to cap the operator’s liability. The policy of Conservative Governments and the current Labour Government was and is that licensees’ liability to indemnify government will be capped, but that commitment is in a policy document. It does not give the certainty of a provision included in statute law.

This is a long-standing unresolved issue. I understand that during consultation exercises and discussions with those involved in the space industry, a key request from the industry has been that there should be legislative certainty that spaceflight operators will not face unlimited liability when operating from the UK. It is not possible for that uncertainty to be removed via the regulation-making power, as there simply is not such a power in 2018 Act. In Section 12(2) of that Act there is no power to have a regulation on this matter. Therefore, the way forward is in the Bill before us today. It would introduce certainty by amending the Space Industry Act 2018 as follows: Clause 1(a) would change “may” to “must” in Section 12(2) of the 2018 Act, and Clause 1(b) would change “any” to “the” in Section 36 of the 2018 Act. Clause 2 simply deals with the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill, consistent with the terms of the 2018 Act. I should note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House reported on 18 July that there is nothing in this Private Member’s Bill that it would wish to draw to the attention of the House.

The Bill has a bit of a black back story. It was passed by the House of Commons early last year, when the sponsor was my then MP and friend, Jonathan Lord, who secured cross-party support for the Bill. He is still very much a friend, though sadly not a Member of Parliament. The Bill made its way here, and I was the sponsor. However, very shortly after the Bill received its First Reading in May, my right honourable friend Rishi Sunak decided to call the general election a little earlier, perhaps, than some of us were expecting, so the Bill was lost for lack of time.

Today, we have the opportunity to breathe life into the Bill. I hope the House will seize that opportunity, and I look forward to hearing the contributions from noble Lords today. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have participated today and for the way in which noble Lords have expressed cross-party support for the Bill. It is right not only to congratulate noble Lords on showing the way forward that the Bill could produce, which would mean a strengthening of investment within the space industry, but on giving us the opportunity to show that the UK is indeed intending to be a leader in the development of all the technological changes that are about to come.

My noble friend Lord Moylan was rather coy about his age, whereas he is but young in this House. I am not saying I am going to send him into space—I promise noble Lords that I will never do that to him—but I would say to him that we have the opportunity here to ensure that we support the development of technology. He was right to ask the questions that he did. I was intrigued by the question about Section 4 of the 2018 Act. I will check again, but I read the Hansard of this House for that Bill—I did not fully read the Commons Hansard—and I was not aware that there had been questioning regarding that. I thank my noble friend for asking that, because it is now on the record, and the Minister gave such a good answer. Me saying a Minister has given a good answer probably has not happened since last summer—I can change occasionally, but not often.

This is an opportunity for the Bill to go through this House, with, I hope, further support so that we are able to get the Bill through in a timely manner, so that those who are willing to invest in a very important industry feel that they have been given the ability to do so, still facing risk, but knowing where the risk lies.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after “passengers” insert “including in a cargo box with seating attached to the front of the pedal cycle”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe whether Clause 1 omits cargo bikes adapted for passenger use from the scope of the Bill.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, I shall also speak to Amendment 4 in my name. The objective of both is to highlight the importance of having a clear definition of pedicabs and their use, so that the Bill can deliver its objectives effectively and fairly.

At Second Reading, I made it clear that I support the Bill but was concerned that the current drafting means that it could unintentionally exclude from its remit activity that really is a business and yet, at the same time, trap activity that clearly is not a business. I tabled Amendments 3 and 4 to give the Government the opportunity to take action to remedy what appear to be defects in the Bill.

Amendment 3 probes whether the definition of “pedicab” fails to cover cargo bikes adapted for passenger use. At Second Reading, I asked the Minister, at col. 778 of Hansard, whether the Government intended to include in the definition of “trailer” a bike that has a cargo box attached at the front which has been adapted for passenger use, since the existing drafting appeared to fail to do so. That would give an open sesame to those in the business of driving or operating pedicabs, which have trailers, suddenly to switch to using seating for passengers attached to the front of the bike to circumvent the legislation. At that stage, my noble friend was not able to give an assurance on this matter.

I was therefore pleased last week to receive the letter sent by the Minister to all who had spoken at Second Reading and to see that the Government had tabled Amendments 43 and 50, which deal with the issue I raised. The government amendments appear to resolve the problem I identified, because they ensure that the meaning of “trailer” now includes a sidecar or seating for passengers attached to the front of the vehicle.

I look forward to hearing later from the Minister his explanation for tabling Amendments 43 and 50 and his response to Amendment 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, because that also supports the position I took at Second Reading. However, I anticipate giving my full support to the Minister’s amendments.

I tabled Amendment 4 to seek clarification about the implications of the word “reward” in Clause 1(2). I was concerned that it could unintentionally bring within the remit of the Bill activity that cannot be considered a business. The example I gave at Second Reading is the transport of a child or baby to school, nursery or perhaps to a doctor’s appointment, when somebody doing that transporting is not the parent. I am not talking about a parent doing it, but cases where the parent cannot—they could be at work—and a neighbour, friend or relative does it in their place. As we reach Christmas, there may be times when one gives a present—a small gift, perhaps a box of chocolates—to the person who has been helping out. My concern is that the lack of definition of “reward” in the context of the Bill makes it possible that the act of a good Samaritan could be brought within its remit.

In his response at Second Reading, my noble friend said:

“As I understand it, the Bill is intended to cover pedicabs plying for hire”.—[Official Report, 22/11/23; col. 790.]


However, Clause 1(2) does not refer to plying for hire. That phrase appears in the Bill only in Clause 2 and does not address the problem I have raised, because subsection (7)(a) refers to a power to impose regulations that may

“prohibit drivers from using pedicabs for standing or plying for hire”

in certain circumstances.

I was going round in circles mentally at this stage, so I decided that the only thing to do was table Amendment 4 to seek further reassurance from my noble friend the Minister. In his letter of 6 December, he stated that a scenario

“where an individual receives a gift as a thank you, is unlikely to be captured under this Bill’s provisions”.

However, that leaves open the fact that it might be captured by the Bill’s provisions. He went on to say that,

“where a formal arrangement is in place for an individual to transport other people’s children on a daily or regular basis in return for a pre-agreed payment, this might be caught by the Bill’s provisions”.

I absolutely see the logic in that because, as a business, it should be within the remit of this Bill. He went on to say that

“it will be for TfL to take a view on such matters in designing the regulations”

and that

“TfL could choose to exercise their regulatory powers in a manner that takes certain types of pedicab usage outside the scope of the regulations”.

This means that the good Samaritan is left in limbo, not knowing whether they are likely to be covered by the Bill in future. We have just had a discussion about who will have the final authority. I can operate only on the basis that the Bill will go forward unchanged because, as we know, amendments can be made here only with the agreement of all Members; if there is a vote, it cuts the Grand Committee dead. I must work on the basis that the Government’s position at the moment will continue until Report, at the very least.

My questions concern how people will know what is going on. Will the Government ensure that regulations impacting those who are not operating a business and who receive small gifts only occasionally will not be imposed? As the Bill stands, the Government could decline to make TfL’s brought-forward regulations. Might the Government then say no to TfL? After all, their Amendment 44 gives them the power to refuse TfL’s regulations. If my noble friend cannot give me the assurance I seek today, can he say how, in these circumstances, the Government and/or TfL will make the public in London aware of what really happens if a good Samaritan decides that it is not worth a candle for them to carry on in case they get caught by regulations and have to go through all the processes—good processes—to check that they are a fit and proper person to carry a friend’s child in their trailer, whether it be a front, side or back trailer? I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly support these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who cannot be here today.

In moving her amendment, the noble Baroness gave some good examples of the concern that this Bill may get the wrong people as well as the right ones, if I can put it that way. I have an example: a relation of mine, who is in his 20s, works for a firm that delivers baby food around London on the back of a trailer. I do not know whether it is electric or pedal-driven—that does not really matter—but it is a trailer. On some occasions, he might want to take a passenger with him. His business is doing quite well—it is a business—but he does not really want to get caught up in all the TfL regulations concerning what we normally call pedicabs.

We have to somehow improve the definition. The noble Baroness has made a good start on this; we should have another chat about it, I hope with the Minister, and see what exactly we are trying to stop. Removing the words “or reward” is certainly a good start, but it does not go far enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

“Hire or reward” is a recognised legal term in taxi and private hire vehicle regulations. The Bill intends the plain meaning of the word “reward”. A scenario where an individual receives a gift as a thank you is unlikely to be captured under the Bill’s provisions. The reference to a pedal cycle or power-assisted pedal cycle being made available with a driver for “hire or reward” is focused on instances where the reward has been agreed prior to the service being delivered.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported my attempt to clarify matters. Having spoken to Amendment 4 and heard colleagues speak, I think I have encouraged the Minister to be less clear rather than more—although I appreciate that he is doing his best to clarify the position on what “reward” means. The base of this is that it can mean different things in different circumstances, and we need to focus on what it means within the circumstance of the Bill.

A moment ago, my noble friend the Minister repeated his point about the activity of someone who has not made a prior agreement for payment to carry someone. For example, my neighbour might agree to carry my grandchild, if I had one, without us making a prior agreement that there will be payment or reward for it—I might be sick and just ask them to do it for me. That, to me, is an instance that should not be caught by any regulation. I know that my noble friend the Minister is doing his best to explain why it should not come within the range of the Bill, but what he has to say in order to give leeway is that it is unlikely to be captured by the provisions of the Bill.

I appreciate that drafting legislation must be a nightmare. Having seen a raft of Bills over the years from three Governments—the coalition and Conservative Governments—and having been Chief Whip for seven years, I appreciate that it is a heck of a job. Often, legislation cannot clearly prescribe rules for every instance. I am really asking my noble friend the Minister: if we end up somewhere where we cannot be clear that a good Samaritan will not be clobbered by these regulations, can we at least make it clear to them that they might be clobbered and that they need to take that into consideration? I would be grateful if the Minister might consider that between now and Report. I am not expecting that to be in the form of an amendment, but it would be helpful if we had further explanation about the relationship there will be between the Government and TfL in terms of how and when regulations are brought forward and what kind of process goes on within the Department for Transport when it considers whether to say yea or nay to those regulations. Clearly, as the Minister said, this is new territory—I know the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, does not agree with that and says there is existing territory around the country to provide for this—but we want to be sure that those who are doing a kindness to others do not find themselves having to go through Criminal Records Bureau checks. That is the old term of course; there is different terminology for those now.

In the meantime, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for trying to tease this out. It would be helpful to know from him a little more, in future, about how the Department for Transport will handle what will, to start off with, be quite a difficult interface between TfL and the department: both will want to get this right, but they may have a different definition of what “right” means. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I follow other noble Lords in welcoming this Bill, which intends to deliver on the Government’s commitment to enact legislation that will make it possible for Transport for London to regulate London’s pedicab business. I live part of the week in Westminster—I am there when Parliament is sitting—and I very much welcome the work that has been done there by our local MP.

I thank my noble friend Lady Vere for hosting a briefing meeting for Peers on this Bill last week, shortly before she was appointed to the Treasury, and at that stage my noble friend Lord Davies was appointed Minister at the Department for Transport. I congratulate both of them on their appointment and wish them every success; I note from Forthcoming Business that both of them are going to be extremely busy up until Christmas—and probably a long way beyond.

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the objectives of the Bill. I object slightly to people saying the objectives are not there—I can perceive them—but I agree it will be very useful to tease them out further in Committee. I also thank the Minister for setting out the reasons for the provisions within the Bill. I do, however, have a couple of questions on points that have not yet been covered by other noble Lords. They are about the drafting of the Bill. I hope my noble friend may be able to resolve those questions today to save taking up time in Committee.

It is right to ensure that businesses, whether they are small, medium or large, can flourish within a regulatory regime that protects employees, customers and the public. However, it is also important to ensure that legislation does not unintentionally capture within its remit activity that should not reasonably be considered as a business, and I am concerned that there is a possibility that the Bill might just do that.

Clause 1(2) gives us the Government’s definition of a pedicab, which is

“a pedal cycle, or a pedal cycle in combination with a trailer, that is constructed or adapted for carrying one or more passengers and is made available with a driver for hire or reward”.

I would be grateful if my noble friend might elaborate on the definition of “reward” in this context. The Minister’s office kindly emailed me after the briefing meeting last week with some further information on a couple of other points, but with regard to the definition of reward stated that

“our intent is the plain meaning of the word”.

Fair enough, one might say, but I have in mind the impact on parents who I see routinely in the Westminster area cycling responsibly with a trailer taking their young child or children to a nursery or shops or primary schools. In those circumstances there is clearly no payment or reward involved, because it is their children.

But what if, as I am assured does happen, the parent is helping out a friend, neighbour or relative by transporting their child or children in a trailer, perhaps regularly, and is occasionally rewarded by gifts—I am not saying money, just kindly gifts? Do they come within the scope of the Bill and thereby become subject to regulations to be imposed by TfL: for example, clearing criminal record checks and having insurance? If the Government intend that these people should not and cannot come within the scope of the Bill, can my noble friend the Minister please make that clear today?

It is also important that those who are running a pedicab business do not manage to evade the provisions of the Bill by misusing, or changing the use of, the definition of “trailer”. Cargo bicycles are advertised as having a large box attached to the front of the bike, with a seat and removable rain cover, which is set at a height to enable the carriage of passengers. Do the Government intend that the meaning of trailer in Clause 1(2) should, indeed, encompass a box with seating at the front of the bike? If so, can my noble friend the Minister please put that on the record today as well?

I note that the Explanatory Notes in the Bill state at paragraph 11:

“A wide definition is required because there are many types of pedicab”.


Indeed there are, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley will tease out the meaning of “pedicab” when we get to Committee.

While I hope the Bill goes through as quickly as possible, because people in London need it, my concern is that its remit will unintentionally trap activity that is not business and, at the same time, exclude activity that is business. I look forward to my noble friend’s response and I wish the Bill a fair wind.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is very courteously giving noble Lords the opportunity to leave the Chamber, but it might be helpful if they did so quietly and as speedily as possible so that we can get on to Amendment 1.

Clause 1 : Option to make planning application directly to Secretary of State

Amendment 1

Moved by

Localism Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I am most grateful to the Lord Speaker. This is the last day that she will be performing this particular function, and it is coming to a rather different conclusion than expected, with amicable agreement. It would not be normal for me to stand up at this time, but of course I was not allowed to come in while the Lord Speaker was on her feet calling amendments. I am most grateful to her for stopping at this moment.

There have been discussions in the usual channels. I am grateful, too, for the assistance of the Convenor of the Cross Benches. Agreements have been reached whereby business will be able to be concluded—we estimate within about half an hour. I am most grateful to Members of all Benches, who have agreed that, on this occasion, they will not be moving their amendments. Clearly, there has to be one exception to this, and that is with regard to those government amendments which have been tabled; these will need to be dealt with. Agreements have been reached within the usual channels about the appropriate way in which that might be handled. I am, unusually, going to advise my noble friend the Minister, from a standing position, that she will be able merely to move her amendments without speaking to them. I anticipate that the opposition Front Bench, and the coalition Benches, will be able to support the Motion that those amendments be added to the Bill. My anticipation is that, as a result of these discussions, all other Peers will be saying “not moved” as their amendments are called.

I am sorry to presume upon the patience of the Lord Speaker, because I realise that she will indeed have rather a large speaking role in guiding us, as she always does, so deftly through business.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the noble Baroness please explain to me this: if we are going to forbear and not move our amendments today on the basis that they could all come back at Report, why does not the same run for the government amendments?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, there have been discussions about this. There are circumstances in which that happens, and it was a possibility. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will know, it is a procedure that is happily adopted in Grand Committee, whereby if there is agreement, a government amendment may go in; later on, if the Opposition find that they have not had time for proper thought, and find the amendment totally objectionable, it is possible for an amendment to be brought at Report, by agreement within the usual channels. If a government amendment is accepted and thereby inserted it into the Bill, but this subsequently appears to have been done in a way that the Opposition did not quite expect—if they have found out information later on and, had they known it then, the amendment would have been objectionable to them—then the assurance that I can give both to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who was a distinguished Minister himself so I know he has been through this, and to the House is that they can bring an amendment at Report. There have been thorough-going discussions about how we may properly address issues at Report. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

One further point: is the noble Baroness going to guarantee that we will have sufficient time at Report to bring back the amendments which we are forbearing to move? We have a lot to get through at Report in any event, quite apart from this. I would not want to feel that we were precluded, and end up in the same position as we have ended up in tonight, which has, frankly, mostly been a waste of time in terms of our chance to focus on the detail of these amendments.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The usual channels have taken those issues into consideration, and have come to an agreement which I hope will accommodate proper scrutiny at Report.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

Can I just press the noble Baroness the Chief Whip a little further? When we were in discussions a figure was mentioned. I think it might be helpful, and for the benefit of the House, if that figure was put on the record.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I am most happy to do so. In the ordinary manner of things, we had planned for four days on Report, which is the usual length. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is shaking his head—we accepted that that would not be appropriate, and there will be five and a half days provided on Report.

[The Lord Speaker]

The noble Baroness said that, as usual, I would speak a great deal tonight. In fact, I think it is the first time in five years. The Committee will have to have some patience, I fear.

Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill [HL]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Motion

Moved by

Marine Navigation Aids Bill [HL]

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is able to make his speech, it falls to me to make the following statement. I see one or two puzzled faces opposite, but this is very much a normal matter.

I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Marine Navigation Aids Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip for that introduction. The predecessor to this Bill had its Second Reading nearly a year ago, on 5 February 2010, and I refer noble Lords who are interested to col. 432 of Hansard for that date. In its present form, this Bill is in exactly the same format as the Bill that I introduced then and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to make the same Second Reading speech.