Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord McNally

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment is the result of unfinished business at the end of Report. Basically, there has been an argument throughout this Bill, and there will be in other Bills that come before us, about the worrying nature of the use of secondary legislation that is vaguely promised and vaguely described in primary legislation. In this respect, Clause 67(1), which is vaguely written, refers back to Clause 1(1) which again makes vague commitments. The amendment merely suggests that there should be crisper and more tightly drawn references which avoid blank cheques and abuse of secondary legislation.

I do not intend to press this to a vote this afternoon, but to leave it as a bit of business still to be considered. The other place will need to look at it, because it should be as worrying to them as it is to this House.

I put on record my appreciation for the removal from the Bill of the Henry VIII clause, and I hope that will be a guide for other Bills that are coming before us. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is not in his place, who has made it quite clear that Henry VIII clauses were to be avoided, and that this example of putting in Henry VIII clauses and vague “blank cheque” secondary legislation was a problem that needed to be addressed. That is not to deny the fact that we also need to be able to future-proof Bills as best we can, particularly a Bill such as this. It is a matter of getting the balance right between future-proofing and ring-fencing them in terms of the powers that we write in.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, emphasised in his lecture at King’s College in 2016:

“This is not an attack on delegated legislation”.


However, in that lecture he quoted one of his distinguished predecessors as Lord Chief Justice—Lord Hewart—who, in 1929, warned against,

“the increase of bureaucratic, departmental authority over the citizen”.

The moving of power from Parliament to the Executive is one of the ironies of the Brexit process.

We believe that if we do not heed the warnings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others, we face a constitutional car crash. At the very least, future-proofing should be tightly drawn. The super-affirmative process should be used where necessary, as should sunset clauses. I believe that we need to look at the case for making certain types of secondary legislation amendable by both Houses. That is the thinking behind this amendment—a billet-doux to send down the Corridor to the other place. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I assume that when she comes to respond the Minister will talk about the wording of the amendment and, if she is not going to accept it on behalf of the Government, will indicate why it is not acceptable. Therefore, my brief comments and questions are based on the assumption that she will talk about the wording of the amendment and what it would mean if it were included in the Bill, because obviously I share the concerns that have been expressed. I hope that if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment on behalf of the Government, she will at least indicate a willingness to reflect further on this matter prior to its being considered in the House of Commons.

In her response, perhaps the Minister could say what the Government envisage they might want to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) as it stands that they consider they would not be able to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) if it were amended in line with this amendment. Or, to put it the other way round, what do the Government consider they would not be able to do that they might want to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) amended in line with this amendment that they would be able to do through regulations under Clause 67(1) as it stands?

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord McNally

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, spoke eloquently in Committee on the issue of his party and pavement politics, before referring to his concerns about space debris and the need to bring it back safely—although he did not say whether he was looking for weekly or fortnightly collections. If the noble Lord, Lord McNally, considers that the Government’s amendments address the legitimate concerns he raised, they will of course have our support.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments. They are a first step in the right direction. Although I may have rather light-heartedly introduced the issue at the last stage, we have only to look at what we have done to the sea and to Everest to see how easily important places can be polluted. For that reason, it is important that this is on the agenda.

As was indicated in our last debate, work is being done about this problem by British technology companies. Although it may be the less glamorous end of space travel, clearing up space debris may well be another cutting-edge area that we can exploit as this expands.

The IADC is a representative body. Its membership includes all the big players—Russia, the United States, China, ourselves, the European Space Agency, India, Italy, France, Japan, Ukraine. It is the right body to take these matters forward and the amendment is welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is in his place. I would like to say that he was sorely missed this afternoon, but unfortunately I cannot—we did not miss him at all. I can see that his popping in occasionally in the afternoon to this House of concord and agreement must be a pleasure, away from the hell of the Brexit department. It is good to see him. I do not know whether it was my eloquence or the fact that a former Lord Chief Justice—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—applied his powerful arguments, but we welcome the Government’s concession.

I will not go into a great deal of detail on Amendment 33A. I will read out the section we want to delete:

“Regulations may make provision generally for carrying this Act into effect and for achieving the purpose set out in section 1(1)”.


Subsection 1 is equally catch-all. It states:

“This Act has effect for the purpose of regulating—(a) space activities, (b) sub-orbital activities, and (c) associated activities, carried out in the United Kingdom”.


That is far too wide-reaching.

I make one last plea to the Minister: perhaps we could have further talks involving the opposition—the Official Opposition as well, who put their names to this—to see whether we can get some different wording. We have done a lot of good work on this, but the wording is far too wide. I give her this Gypsy’s warning: if we send the Bill down to the other place with this subsection, it will cause just the same trouble. Parliament has to be very jealous of its privileges during the passage of Bills such as this. This is a bridge too far for anyone who cares about the need to keep powers within these two Houses. I am not going to press the amendment—it would be jarring to the spirit of the whole debate to have a Division at this stage—but if the Minister would agree to meet us and have one more go before Third Reading, that would be helpful.

[Lord Rosser]

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that widespread concern was expressed in Committee about Henry VIII powers in the Bill and the power they would give the Government to bypass Parliament when amending or repealing primary legislation. I too am grateful that the Government have changed their position. I suspect they were concerned that they would lose a vote on this in this House, and were probably far from sure they could put the Henry VIII clause back in the Bill when it got to the Commons. They would also have had the consideration that, at their behest, the Bill started in the Lords rather than the Commons, which is not the normal procedure for Bills containing potentially controversial clauses, as this one did until the government amendment was tabled. Henry VIII may be turning in his grave at these government amendments, but we welcome them.

On Amendment 33A, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I hoped the Government would be able to give some rather more convincing reasons than they gave in Committee for this catch-all regulation-making power being in the Bill. I am afraid the obvious conclusion is that once again, there is no movement because the Government have brought forward this skeletal Bill for their own party management reasons, one year before discussions on the regulations and nearly two years before those key regulations are placed before Parliament. As a result, frankly, the Government do not know what regulations will be needed. Even though this is a difficulty of their own making, they clearly think it quite acceptable to expect Parliament to agree to the wide-ranging regulation-making power Amendment 33A seeks to delete.

I share the view that it would help if this issue could be further discussed before the Bill leaves this House, which means before Third Reading. I also share the view that the subsection that Amendment 33A would delete will, if it remains in the Bill, be the subject of much discussion when it gets to the Commons. If the Government will not agree to delete it, it would be a lot better if it could be amended in some way. I hope they will think again on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

In Committee, we expressed our concerns about the extensive use of secondary legislation to bring in provisions under this Bill due to the Government’s insistence on taking a skeletal Bill through Parliament literally years before the all-important regulations appear.

We also expressed our concern, as did the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, about the Government’s intention, in respect of many regulations, that the affirmative procedure be used only for the first regulations and not for subsequent regulations under the same relevant section of the Bill, which would instead be covered by the negative procedure.

The Government said in Committee that the development of the first sets of regulations would be subject to a stakeholder engagement process over the coming months and that they would then issue a full and wide-ranging consultation on each initial draft statutory instrument prior to their being laid. They also said that if there were any material change to the original instruments, there would be further consultation.

Government Amendment 35 seeks to put some of those undertakings in the Bill. While it does not address the concern about the negative procedure being used for subsequent regulations after the affirmative procedure for the first regulations, it provides a statutory requirement for a public consultation before regulations are made to which Clause 67(6) applies and for a report to be made by the Secretary of State about the consultation when a draft of such regulations is laid before Parliament. To that extent, and it is not a minimal extent, the government amendment represents progress and we welcome it.

[Lord McNally]

Amendment 35 shows that some fertile minds have been at work since these issues were raised. Therefore, while I welcome the amendment, I suggest that the Minister puts those same fertile minds to work on Amendment 33A; then we might have an equally happy outcome at Third Reading.