Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025

Baroness Goldie Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it would be easy simply to stand up and thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument clearly, and it goes without saying that it should have the support of the opposition parties, in particular for the reasons that she outlined at the end—to demonstrate that we stand united with our NATO allies on a cross-party basis—but I have a few comments to make.

On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we considered whether somebody on the defence side or the transport side should respond, but the sad circumstance is that today my noble friend Lady Pidgeon is in Cardiff for the funeral of our late lamented friend Baroness Randerson, so it was agreed that, almost regardless of the subject matter, I would take the business today. In doing so, I pay tribute to Baroness Randerson, who would in many ways have been the perfect person to lead on this because her interests were in transport but she also had a real interest in the international.

With those words of introduction, I came to this statutory instrument rather cold. When we take part in the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, we are very much told that air, sea, land, cyber and space are so important for defence. It is very clear that we need to ensure that space is safe, so we absolutely support the principle of the statutory instrument. In particular, as the Minister said, it is vital that Exercise Formidable Shield can take place, but a few questions come up.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has on various occasions pointed out that, if the UK were subject to the sort of attacks that Israel faced from Iran, we would not have been able to defend ourselves in the way that Israel was able to do with its Iron Dome. One of my questions, therefore, is: will the exercise that takes place in May, which, as the Minister said, brings together our NATO allies, be replicated in various ways and places to assist in our securing space? I realise that that may be a defence question on which she may wish to write, but I thought I would raise it here and now.

I also have a couple of other questions. Clearly, the Minister is right that the regulation can be done better by the MoD than by the Civil Aviation Authority, but if actions are being undertaken by our service personnel under the auspices of the MoD and therefore military law, there are various issues at stake and, if something went wrong, we would know whom to hold accountable. With our partners and allies, how will that be dealt with? Are there international agreements that would enable us to ensure that any accidents, errors or misdemeanours could be dealt with in an appropriate way? This is not to suggest that the statutory instrument should not go ahead but rather to understand how matters will be dealt with if there is some flaw in the system that means we might need legal measures.

I also have a query—nothing of great import—that I was slightly wondering about. The statutory instrument refers to the “Crown interest” and “Crown land”, as well as to the “Duchy interest”, which is:

“an interest belonging to His Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall”.

Does that mean the rights of the Duchy of Cornwall currently, which belongs to the Prince of Wales, or are there Duchy lands that still adhere to His Majesty the King? That is purely a question that puzzled me slightly.

Apart from those few questions, there is nothing else for me to say other than that we wish the statutory instrument well.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, first I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, with reference to her friend and colleague Baroness Randerson.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, comes to this cold, I come to the issue out of the deep freeze, but let me do my best. The Minister has helpfully laid out the primary purpose of the draft statutory instrument, by describing the exemptions that the draft instrument creates; of course, these activities, unless exempted, would otherwise be caught by the civilian-focused regulations. Therefore, let me say first that I accept the priority that must be accorded to defence operational flexibility, and I not only support but applaud the Government’s desire to ensure such flexibility is not compromised.

Having said that, while I support the statutory instrument, developments in the space domain are fast-moving and, while protecting our defence capability activity is of course vital, broader questions arise as to how the Government will keep abreast of that fast-moving scene. I have a number of questions, on which I will be very happy if the Minister wishes to write to me. My first question is: welcome though this SI is, how do the Government align this exemption with consistent principles of oversight and accountability, which are central to the overall integrity of space operations?

To minimise risk, do the Government propose to review the operation of this exemption in practice, perhaps after a year, to ensure that there are no unintended and potentially dangerous consequences and that there is transparency about how the exemption is operating? We must be satisfied that the shift of power from civilian regulators, such as the Civil Aviation Authority, to the MoD is not inadvertently reducing accountability unacceptably and potentially sidelining important safety protocols that are in place for good reason. I seek the Minister’s reassurance about that.