Space Industry Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

38: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“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.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I wonder how this interacts with the image of a new tourism industry and viewing platforms that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned in his speech on Monday. Will this fit with that concept of how space travel and the space industry will develop in the future? I think again of my happy campers on Shell Island. How will this impact on their summer holidays and on the business that is so well established there? I use that as a real-life example of the kind of impact this kind of activity could have. I entirely endorse the comments of both noble Lords; we need much more precision in these clauses.

[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.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

24: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“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 Fox]

In the light of that clarification, I thank the Minister and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Reference has been made to geo-fencing near spaceports. To reduce inadvertent breaching of airspace restrictions and protect safety, we are setting up a pilot project bringing forward work to improve the use of geo-fencing in the UK. Project Chatham will create an authoritative UK airspace data source, including critical national infrastructure sites and spaceports, furthering the implementation of geo-fencing in the UK and building greater awareness of airspace restrictions among drone users.

[Lord Fox]

The Minister mentioned Project Chatham. Who is accountable and leading Project Chatham?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Lord Fox Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 12th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[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.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, last week I had the pleasure of attending a reception given by the High Value Manufacturing Catapult. At that event the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Prior of Brampton, spoke eloquently of the challenges facing this country, in particular the changes that will follow the onset of Industry 4.0, the effects of machine learning, and the scale of the change that will result from those developments. I completely agreed with his speech—which, given the audience, fell on receptive ears. It was clear to all of us there, including businesses seeking to create a new future and some of the brightest manufacturing people around, that the future is changing fast, that Britain needs to change at least as fast and that government must act to maximise our strengths and shore up our weaknesses. Failure to do so will have an impact on all the aspects of this portfolio debate. Yet the gracious Speech did its best to divert attention and fiddle around the margins. Of course, the reasons for that are clear for all to see and will be set out by many speakers in today’s debate, not least by my colleagues on these Benches.

At a time when external pressures on our wealth-generating industries have never been more intense, our Government and the machinery they command are completely distracted. So we face the prospect not only of this Government choosing the wrong paths during the Brexit negotiations but of there being insufficient energy within government to meet the other real existential challenges facing us. The effects of Brexit will be rehearsed by many others in your Lordships’ House today and probably on every other day of the debating week. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will focus on the other part of this challenge.

I shall speak briefly about some of the specific measures in the Queen’s Speech and then pick up some key features around the industrial strategy. We will see that not only are the Government distracted but they are impotent. They have not the slightest chance of passing anything but the most anodyne of measures, which explains the non-Brexit legislation that will be set before us. For example, we have heard that the Government will introduce legislation to ensure that the UK remains a world leader in new industries, including electric and automated vehicles and commercial satellites, about which the Minister spoke very eloquently. Very good, I say. Here, I must draw attention to my declared interests in GKN and Smiths Group. In highlighting those aspects, the Minister has indicated why those Bills are there: they are a diversion from the main issues that we face as a country. They are important but not as important as the things that are not in the Queen’s Speech.

Regarding automated and electric cars, clearing up some of the insurance issues and making things easier to plug in are of course important but there are real technological and infrastructure considerations that are not addressed—not least the woeful wireless and broadband network in the United Kingdom. In that regard, following last Session’s Digital Economy Act, can the Minister tell us when a universal service obligation will be delivered to the whole country and what that USO will be? For its part, the UK space industry, while benefiting from a landing bay, will be massively affected to the negative by how it is being disconnected from the rest of Europe’s industry. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how severing some of our most effective industrial links will strengthen the space industry and, indeed, the wider aerospace industries.

I turn to another part of the Queen’s Speech, where Her Majesty announced that the Government,

“will spread prosperity and opportunity across the country through a new, modern industrial strategy”.

Who would vote against something as good as that? To be fair, once again the noble Lord, Lord Prior, has acknowledged that the current industrial strategy Green Paper, which now awaits the Government’s next move, had its genesis in the days of BIS and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. It was taken on and up by Vince Cable and the coalition, so there is a continuum through that process. I am sure that the Minister has read my party’s response to the consultation on the Green Paper but, for the benefit of the rest of the House, I will pull out a couple of points.

From memory, some 40 questions were posed in the consultation, yet none of these asked for any input on how to shape the UK economy to become more green and sustainable. So I ask the Minister: is that because the Government felt they already had the answers to these questions or because they did not care? In answering this question, the Minister could undertake to publish a green business road map setting out measures to incentivise all business to reduce waste and improve effective resource use. He could also explain how the UK can capitalise on our leading positions in green technology and comment on the future role of the Green Investment Bank.

A second facet not highlighted in the industrial strategy response questions was inclusive growth. The Queen’s Speech, rightly, talks about spreading prosperity across the country, so in that regard will the Minister confirm that the Government will recognise the findings of the Inclusive Growth Commission’s report? Furthermore, how place-based development is delivered is key. I would like some clarity from the Government. They have put stock in the creation of metro mayors, yet vast swathes of the country do not have one; it is local enterprise partnerships and other agencies that are charged with driving local development. Will the Minister explain how the Government will deliver their place-based development and how prosperity will be brought across the country? Will it be through the LEPs as they exist now? Will it be through some future, super-charged version of the LEPs, or are we to expect something else?

There is also the issue of skills. Without any real change in the delivery of skilled people, nothing is achievable. We all agree that we need more and different skills. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others have eloquently explained how the industrial future will depend on getting this right. As a start, the Government have spoken of T-levels to rival A-levels in esteem. There are no further details as yet, so the Minister could perhaps sketch in how those will work. The Queen’s Speech introduces an idea of major reform of technical education. What does that mean? What does it mean for T-levels? What does it mean for UTCs, their future and their current performance? Whatever is proposed can work only if backed by real and substantial funding for education, training and skills development. All talk of a new sort of technical education pales into insignificance if there is no money. How much new money will be placed on the table to deliver the skills we need?

Finally, there was an eye-catching provision in the Conservative Party manifesto—it is not the one that noble Lords are thinking of—that pointed to the formation of a future Britain sovereign wealth fund, largely funded from shale gas extraction revenues. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether this fund is still planned and just how much money he expects to be in it by the end of this Parliament? If there is any money in this fund, what will it be used for?

This speech is stuffed full of questions because the election and now the Queen’s Speech have failed to spell out anything meaningful about the Government’s intentions. My worry is that the Government themselves are not sure what they want either. It is very hard to see how the events of the last two years could in any way be seen to be putting the economy first. The economy is suffering from the actions of this Government and will continue to until a coherent vision and route to reach it are properly set out. I hope this debate is used by the Government to start to unveil this vision, but I am not hopeful that we will hear anything that actually and truly spreads prosperity across the country.