Space Industry Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

7: Clause 9, page 7, line 37, leave out “to (4)” and insert “and (3)”

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I shall speak also to Amendments 8, 11 and 12 in this group. The Bill requires, in Clause 9(4) on page 7:

“As regards risks to the health, safety and property of persons not within subsection (2)”—


subsection (2) is about individuals who take part—

“the applicant must have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that those risks are as low as reasonably practicable”,

and,

“the level of those risks must be acceptable”.

This set of amendments vests the responsibility for certificating that this level of risk has been achieved in the Health and Safety Executive.

I start by thanking the Minister for the time that he has given to talk to us about the Bill—therefore, I cannot pretend that this is a probing amendment. I for one, and the rest of our Front Bench to a degree, feel that the Bill is premature. The two-year gap envisaged between the Bill becoming and Act and the full emergence of the regulations suggests to us that introducing the Bill at a later time would have been more efficient and allowed fuller scrutiny on a more comprehensive Bill. That is particularly drawn out in the whole safety issue.

The bit of the Bill that I have read requires the concept of the risks to what I shall call uninvolved third parties to be reduced to “as low as reasonably practicable”. That is a very widely used concept in the safety world—a complex concept that weighs benefits against risks and costs.

I shall take a view of the benefits of the Bill. The Minister quoted the importance and value of the space industry to the United Kingdom, and I would not in any way demur from that, but we are not talking about creating it or not, or the space industry carrying on in future or not. We are talking about two capabilities. One is about inserting the satellites into orbit and the other is space tourism. I know that some other things are prayed in aid, but that as a generality covers what the Bill will provide.

There is no way in which we are going to be a first mover in inserting satellites into orbit. The Americans, Russians, French and Chinese are all in this business. The Minister suggested that there was a special European dimension, and there may be, but to a degree inserting satellites into orbit is likely to become a commodity, especially as satellites become smaller and less weighty. There is a benefit, but the benefit will have to be judged in the whole balance of achieving “as low as reasonably practicable”.

I find the concept of space tourism extremely difficult to grapple with in safety terms. The nearest thing we have had to sustained space tourism was the shuttle programme. There were 135 missions; two ended catastrophically and 14 people died. I doubt that there is genuinely much of a market for tourism which involves a one in 65 chance of dying. The Virgin Galactic programme has also been mentioned. This has so far resulted in one destroyed aircraft and one dead pilot. Broadly speaking, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act requires that an activity where an employee runs a risk of more than one in 1,000 is unacceptable and should simply not happen. I find it difficult to believe that, with the risks apparent at the moment, space tourism would be certificated in this country in the near future.

Although the benefits of the industry as a whole are valid, it is less clear how great they are for this particular capability. They would also need to be balanced in meeting the requirements of the clause that protects the safety of uninvolved third parties, whose exposure is nicely brought out in annexe C to the letter which the Minister was good enough to write to me and some other noble Lords. It stated:

“The current UK aviation regulatory regime prioritises the safety of the aircraft and its occupants and does not directly regulate the safety of third parties on the ground ... If the level of safety for the aircraft and its occupants is sufficient then by default third parties can be considered appropriately protected”.


This approach is clearly not sufficient in this direction, either in its outcome or in its nature.

Generally speaking, there are two ways of developing a safety regime. There is the accident-led way: an enormous proportion of our safety law—fire law, building regulations et cetera—comes from accidents from which we learn. It may surprise noble Lords to learn that aviation safety essentially has the same basis. When I was involved in the industry in the 1960s, a British-registered jet aircraft crashed about every two years. When I entered the profession it was dangerous, with a chance of dying of about one in 2,000 per annum. Before civil aviation had its many crashes, the military was exploring the edges of the envelope and having similar numbers of them. The industry developed a high-quality investigation regime and slowly learned from these events. It then put them into regulations and co-operation emerged, both in the industry and internationally, which has refined itself into today’s civil aviation regime. I am not questioning its effectiveness, but one has to recognise its background. It is about experimenting, having events and then learning from them. That is my first point in arguing that the civil aviation approach is not suitable for this industry.

Secondly, the hybrid launch concept will not be certificatable within the normal civil aviation system. Basically, you cannot certificate aeroplanes to carry rockets. One has to realise that a rocket is merely a managed explosion. Those of us who remember the early days of spaceflight know that when rockets go wrong they turn into explosions. Carrying a rocket, these aircraft will be highly specialised and certainly will not fall naturally into any certification regime. As the Minister’s quotation illustrated, the consequences on the ground of an aircraft with a rocket on board crashing will have to be addressed. The presumption that the airplane and its occupants are safe will not be proven to the level by which one can disregard the impact of such a crash.

Thirdly, in a hybrid approach, not only do we have to look at the risks to aircraft used to launch rockets, we also have to look at rocket-propelled aircraft. One of the many ideas used to illustrate the potential value of spaceports are rocket-propelled aircraft, which will be an entirely new area of risk. The Bill allows for vertically launched rockets, and these will need to be assessed. Therefore, I argue that the aviation approach is not appropriate or called for by the Bill. It calls for an ALARP approach, which essentially, as I have already said, balances the benefits against the risks. It is a forward-looking approach and is used in nuclear, the railway environment and safety-critical industries. To meet this requirement one needs competence in the ALARP approach. Our amendments argue that that competence is held by the Health and Safety Executive.

However, as important as the requirement in connection with the body certifying that the level of risk has been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable is the requirement that from the beginning we have a single point of responsibility for safety. For most of my career I have been involved in safety-critical environments. It is almost impossible to stress the improvement in safety whereby an individual accountable to his board or organisation goes to bed knowing that if there is an incident in the area for which he or she is responsible, they cannot say, “That was their fault”, because, at least to some extent, it is that person’s responsibility. The most that person can do is join other parties in their responsibility. The responsibility lies with the individual and the organisation. Therefore, I believe that we need a single authority and an ALARP approach as an integrated whole that can look at the benefits and the risks posed by events and the consequences. We argue that only the Health and Safety Executive, with appropriate professional inputs, can meet that requirement and has the experience and skill to deliver this judgment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I associate myself with the intention behind these amendments. In preparing for the Bill, I spoke to a wide range of individuals and organisations involved in the space industry. They undoubtedly take health and safety very seriously and are surprised at the low density of detail in the Bill in relation to those aspects. Noble Lords across the Chamber have said several times this afternoon how exciting and important this issue is. There is undoubtedly lots of enthusiasm but, looked at dispassionately, this is a dangerous activity for those involved in it and others who are not involved but who live in the surrounding area or, indeed, almost anywhere in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out the potential for space tourism without people even leaving the ground as there will be viewing platforms and so on. All these things have to be considered from the health and safety standpoint. I have become increasingly concerned about the clutter in our skies. We are all familiar with planes but we are increasingly concerned about drones, and now we are taking into account space activity. Our skies are crowded and it is important that the Government set out a comprehensive, co-ordinated and truly effective approach to these issues.

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their important interventions on the vital topic of safety, which we take extremely seriously.

Clauses 9 and 10 require that applicants for spaceflight operator and spaceport licences take all reasonable steps to ensure that risks to health and safety of the general public—as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, observed—are as low as reasonably practicable. Furthermore, Clause 9(4)(b) means that even after all steps have been taken to reduce risk to as low as is reasonably practicable, the regulator will not issue a licence if the risk to public health and safety remains unacceptably high.

The noble Lord raised through these amendments the question of the role that we expect the Health and Safety Executive to have regarding spaceflight in the UK. The Health and Safety Executive has undoubted expertise and a long track record in a breadth of issues and across a range of sectors. Clause 20 ensures that the regulator is able to draw on this expertise to inform decision-making in connection with safety of spaceflight activities. This is consistent with the role the Health and Safety Executive plays in other sectors. The Health and Safety Executive does not normally regulate by licensing or certifying safety. Instead, it imposes a duty on those that may create risk to manage those risks to be as low as reasonably practicable.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The noble Lord will accept that the Health and Safety Executive in the permissioned industries—for instance, nuclear, railways and several others—directly approves the operation of those industries.

[Lord Callanan]

I will come on to that point shortly.

I am confident that the approach we are taking is appropriate. In line with agreed health and safety practice, the Bill places the onus on the regulator to be satisfied that risks are as low as reasonably practicable and that they are acceptable. But equally, the Bill ensures that the regulator will have access to the expertise possessed by the Health and Safety Executive, where this is required. I stress that this is expertise we have already benefited from. I thank the Health and Safety Executive for the integral role it has played in developing this legislation with my department and the UK Space Agency.

I will share some detail on how we believe regulators will determine whether risk to public safety is acceptable. The approach will be aligned with best practices for managing risk across all sectors in the UK. We expect to use an individual risk per annum approach—in other words, in a given location, the risk of death arising from the activity to an individual across a reference period of one year. The regulator will publish a methodology for assessing risk which operators may choose to use. The Government are currently working with HSE’s Science Division—its research arm—to develop a comprehensive methodology for the assessment of risk to third parties.

How can we be assured that the regulator will have the appropriate personnel and skills to assess the safety cases presented by operators? The Civil Aviation Authority, the UK Space Agency and the Health and Safety Executive are respected regulators in their fields, with proven track records in regulating risky activities. That is why we are drawing on their relevant regulatory expertise for this new sector. I assure the Committee that these organisations are building on their existing heritage to develop their technical and analytical capability to assess the specific risks posed by spaceflight.

Although regulating and managing the risk of spaceflight is new to the UK, other countries have many years’ experience of it. We are learning from existing spaceflight regulators in other countries and intend to enter into agreements that will include provision for the training of our personnel and the sharing of information on those activities. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have answered his questions and will agree to withdraw Amendment 7.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, in the interests of time, I will withdraw the amendment. However, my immediate reaction is that I am not fully comforted by what I have heard, and I expect us to come back on Report on this issue. In the meantime, it may be fruitful to engage in further discussions with the Minister to see whether we can get closer together on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

15: Clause 11, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (2)

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

We have seen in the speeches the different approaches that noble Lords wish the Government to take to cap liabilities. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, it is to remove the provision.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The purpose of the amendments was to bring out precisely, in simple words, what the Government want to do. I am not hostile to a cap or to some government help, but I want to be clear what the Bill means. If I do not like what I have heard, we will come back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The Minister went into exactly the sort of detail we were looking for. I stress that I am not hostile to the concept of a cap, but I will reduce this to very simple terms. If I were to suffer—no, I am nowhere near that rich. If Glasgow suffers an event that substantially exceeds the cap, can it reasonably expect that the excess above the cap will be met by the Government?

[Lord Callanan]

There is no simple answer to that question. It would depend on the conditions of the licence issued for the particular activity and whether any cap was imposed on that activity at the time. We are looking at every launch activity, and every application will be considered on an individual basis.

To go back to the comment made by my noble friend Lord Willetts, as I said, we are in listening mode. I am aware that this is a controversial subject. He will understand the discussions taking place between different government departments on this issue. I will say more on it as soon as I can, but I take on board the concerns raised by many people and those of industry, which have been expressed to me personally and by many noble Lords this afternoon. If it is helpful, let me say that the Government intend to exercise their power under Clause 11 to cap an operator’s indemnity to the UK Government in licence conditions for the activities of procuring the launch of a space object and the operation of a satellite in orbit, as this is currently the policy for activities licensed under the Outer Space Act.

As I said, I am listening to people on this. I will say more as soon as I am able to. I am aware of the concerns. We are in listening mode and we will reflect on the comments made. In the light of that, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Is the noble Lord likely to be able to shed light on this issue before Report?

[Lord Callanan]

If I possibly can, I will.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I hope noble Lords will agree that this exchange was worth while, because we have the record, which we can all examine. The needs or rights of the uninvolved third party in the circumstances of a very large catastrophe are still unclear as a result of that exchange. Perhaps we will have some conversations about that issue before Report. Otherwise, we may feel the need to table an amendment, because it seems reasonable for a citizen to expect, with appropriate caveats, that where the Government have allowed an operator to enjoy special rights of limitation—I can see exactly the reasons for that; it happened in aviation at the peak of the terrorist events, for example, so it is perfectly sensible—the Government would be the insurer of last resort. We may well come back to that point.

In the meantime, I thank the Government and all those involved in the debate because the record will clarify what is very difficult to understand from the Bill. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I too would like to own up to trying to find some way of squirrelling drones into this debate and this Bill, but I gave up on the early assurance from the Minister that he was doing all that he possibly could. However, on rereading his letter today, I find that there is some confusion in my mind between a registration scheme relating to mandatory competence testing, and so on, and a more powerful scheme that might set up some technological devices to achieve the objective of separating drones from air traffic and be clearer about how it will be enforced. I should be very grateful if he could flesh out some of the ideas in his letter.

Also in the Minister’s letter—although I realise that this matter is only tenuously in front of us—was a paragraph on the misuse of lasers. He pointed out that there was a clause in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which fell when Parliament prorogued, and he produced certain assurances about the issue and about how pilots and the wider public might be protected. I would be grateful if he would accept the indulgence of the House for him to repeat the assurances that he provides in that letter about addressing the issue of lasers at an early date.

[Lord Callanan]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, which allows me to explain at length another aspect of my ministerial responsibilities—the thorny issue of drones. I accept that raising it in the passage of this Bill is a way in which to put it on the record, which we intend to do, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Balfe, at least in part. I realise that their concerns go further than the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, mentioned in his intervention.

The safe use of drones in the UK is vital if we are to realise the full potential that they can deliver. I assure noble Lords from the outset that that is exactly what the Government want, and exactly why we recently responded to our consultation setting out a number of measures that we intend to implement. The UK is at the forefront of an exciting and growing global drones market. We are seeing drones used across many sectors, improving services, increasing efficiency, creating high-tech jobs and boosting our economy. But while aiming to make the UK a global market leader in the drone economy, we must ensure that drones are used safely and in accordance with security and privacy rules. I am well aware of the July Airprox incident at Gatwick reported in the press over the weekend. No one wants to see incidents such as those occurring, which is why we intend to bring forward legislation to strengthen regulation and enforcement for drones.

To reply to my noble friends directly, we are exploring both primary and secondary legislation options and hope to bring legislation forward as soon as possible next year, including an amendment to the Air Navigation Order 2016. My noble friend Lord Balfe asked what measures we were introducing. As set out in our July consultation response, all users of drones that weigh 250 grams or more will be required to register themselves, which will encourage drone users to be more responsible and make it easier to identify drones that are breaking the law. Users will then be required to pass at minimum a short knowledge test to prove their awareness of UK law to ensure that they understand safety, security and privacy regulations. We are also looking to mandate the use of a safety app, an example of which is the NATS app Drone Assist, to notify plans to fly a drone and make users aware of local flight restrictions and ground hazards.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The Minister’s answer so far implies that there is no risk from drones weighing less than 250 grams. What tests and evidence does he have to assure us that that is true?

[Lord Callanan]

We did extensive safety tests in conjunction with BALPA, and released a detailed report on the size of drones and damage that they could cause to aircraft—both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. We considered that 250 grams was a reasonable threshold to impose at the time.

We are considering a possible restriction on all drones flying within a certain distance of airports and above 400 feet, and whether to increase penalties for breaking the rules. That includes whether and how spaceports could be included in any restrictions that we may implement. Furthermore, we are working towards implementing a product standard for electronic identification of drones at EU and international level. We strongly support EASA’s principal electronic identification, but want to see the proposals simplified to all drones above 250 grams to require electronic identification rather than a complex set of conditions.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

34: Clause 33, page 23, line 37, leave out subsection (1)

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 34 is about noise. Some 36 years ago I had a very pleasant life as a 747 co-pilot; it really was a splendid lifestyle. One would be given permission, on departure, to fly at 35,000 feet. You would think the difficult bit would be the take-off, but it is not particularly so. You point the plane down the runway, get to about 180 or 190 miles per hour, then pull the stick back and 320 tonnes of aircraft, including yourself and the captain, goes gracefully into the air. That is when the trouble starts, because you start to fly what is called a standard instrument departure, which often involves lots of twists and turns very early in the departure. The reason for that, not just in the UK but across the world, is to follow a minimum noise route. If you do not follow such a route, someone will ring up the airport, the airport will ring up your employer and your employer will have a free and frank discussion about your career. Noise has been at the top of the list of concerns about civil aviation since the jet age. Early jets were extremely noisy. I was privileged to fly the VC10, which has a noise footprint comparable to that of a satellite-inserting rocket; at least that is what my wife used to say.

In the Bill, I looked for provisions to protect people around spaceports from noise. From looking through the Bill—I am sure the Box will send a note if I am wrong—I am pretty sure that the word “noise” does not appear anywhere in it. I did not look for its near relative, the word “nuisance”, which is what would be used in virtually any other environment. It is normally common-law rights—I am not a lawyer but I think they are called torts—to quiet enjoyment that allow one to use the courts to restrain the nuisance other parties bring to one. Looking for the word “nuisance” in the Bill—once again, I await correction—I believe it appears once, on page 23, in Clause 33(1), which states:

“No liability arises in trespass or nuisance in respect of spaceflight activities carried out in compliance, or substantially in compliance, with the requirements and conditions imposed by or under this Act”.


In other words, the only reference to “nuisance” is to deny citizens the rights to use the courts to protect themselves.

Nowhere in the paperwork can I find the Minister writing to me and saying it, but I think he has said informally that this is just like aviation law, which has a similar clause that we will deal with in the same way. The folklore was that it was as simple as that, but I thought I would look it up. The most useful reference I found—I used Google; let us be realistic—was an online publication, politics.co.uk. I checked it out with our press department and I am sure it is a respectable organisation that does not produce fake news. The site had a section on aviation noise, which I will quote, simply because it is so much better worded than any speech I could create:

“The Air Navigation Act 1920”—


I knew it had gone back a long time—

“provided the basis of the UK’s aviation noise regulation regime, by exempting aviation from nuisance sanctions, in order to stimulate the nascent industry. This principle was reaffirmed in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which nonetheless set out a number of provisions for controlling noise at larger airports through a process of ‘designation’, which has only been applied to date to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. By their Section 78 designation, the Transport Secretary is responsible for regulating take-off and landing noise at these airports”.

So I sped to the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to see how it exempted aeroplanes from noise sanctions. Section 76 says:

“No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order and of any orders under section 62 above have been duly complied with”.


Even that implies more control than the bland subsection in the Bill that I recommend be deleted. In fact, I hope the Minister will come back with a much better balanced subsection.

I then went on to read Section 78 of the Act, which is really quite powerful:

“The Secretary of State may by a notice published in the prescribed manner provide that it shall be the duty of the person who is the operator of an aircraft which is to take off or land at a designated aerodrome to secure that, after the aircraft takes off or, as the case may be, before it lands at the aerodrome, such requirements as are specified in the notice are complied with in relation to the aircraft, being requirements appearing to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of limiting or of mitigating the effect of noise and vibration connected with the taking off or landing … at the aerodrome”.


That section has enabled communities around those major airports to be protected over the years since 1982. I continue to quote from politics.co.uk, which says:

“In practice, noise restrictions at designated airports”—


Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—

“have been implemented through restrictions on departing aircraft noise, controls on night flying and (at Heathrow and Gatwick, under Section 79) housing noise insulation schemes … At other airports, the successive governments have continued to favour local resolution. Councils’ main instrument in this regard is the Section 106 Obligation, a condition that can be placed on planning permission. These Obligations can limit movement numbers, operating hours and the types of permitted aircraft. Voluntary agreements can also be reached. London City Airport and Luton Airport, for example, have agreed maximum noise exposure contours, which must not be exceeded”.

I put to the Minister that a combination of the fact there can be designation and the fact there is precedent for these local resolutions is why air operators agree these local agreements. There is a parallel in some of the banking regulations: because strong powers exist for government to implement appropriate protections, local agreements emerge. There is no strong power in this Bill to which communities can look. Therefore, I believe the Bill is insufficient to achieve the objective.

Compared with Clause 33, the whole of the aviation industry is, by statute and practice, better equipped to protect from noise those who live around airports. The Bill should be amended by the Government to have a more comprehensive regime to ensure that when this industry is as successful as so many people described on Monday, with massive numbers of movements, those living around the spaceports have adequate powers to protect themselves from noise nuisance. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for moving his amendment—I shall say a few words about noise shortly. We have already had a helpful debate on Clause 33(5) and (6) and the power to cap an operator’s liability, but Amendment 34 would remove subsection (1). Under the amendment, an operator could be susceptible to claims for trespass or nuisance even where they had carried out their spaceflight activities in compliance with all the requirements placed on them.

I appreciate the concerns that noble Lords have raised about this clause and the possibility of spaceflight activities having an adverse impact on people in the locality. The clause is designed to balance the right to quiet enjoyment of one’s land against the right to carry out a commercial activity, and to ensure the minimal encroachment of rights where the operator is acting in accordance with the law. As the noble Lord acknowledged, it is replicated from Section 76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which provides a similar protection for aircraft operators. We believe that this provision is necessary to prevent an operator who was acting lawfully from being sued by a third party who considers that his or her right to quiet enjoyment of land is being affected or interfered with.

I should highlight that given the nature of spaceflight activities, it is likely that spaceports will be set up in remote locations, very possibly in Scotland, where any noise or nuisance is likely to affect very few people. In comparison to aviation—where operators, I should remind the Committee, already have this protection—the number of spaceports and the frequency of spaceflight activities will be much fewer. The similar provision in the Civil Aviation Act protects aircraft against claims of trespass and nuisance. Therefore, where aircraft are used in spaceflight activities they already have protection against those claims, and for spaceports at aerodromes, the amendment would have little practical effect.

Our view is that subsection (1) is appropriate to enable spaceflight operators to carry out activities from the UK. It should also be stressed that such a protection does not apply if an operator does not comply substantially with all the requirements imposed upon them. This protection from claims of nuisance and trespass does not prevent anyone who has suffered injury or damage bringing a claim against an operator under the strict liability cause of action provided for in Clause 33(2) or under any other cause of action, such as negligence.

Let me give a little more detail on how frequently we envisage these operations being carried out and their noise impact. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, acknowledged, noise is undoubtedly a prime concern. My main ministerial responsibility is aviation, and I know all too well from my postbag of the difficulties caused to many communities where people live near or around airports. There will be a concern about launch operations; we need to acknowledge that spaceplanes and rockets create significant noise as they take off. Spaceplanes will also create significant noise as they pass overhead. Feedback from operators suggests that vertical launch operations could occur up to 12 times per year. These are indicative figures and would apply across the whole country. It is of course envisaged that in the early years of operations, launches will not even be as frequent as that.

It is difficult to provide an estimate of the launch frequency for suborbital spaceplane operations. Although precise noise levels have yet to be fully determined, initial indications based on published characteristics are that noise from spaceplanes should not create a more significant impact than noise from military fast jets. It is anticipated that in the immediate term, spaceports with horizontal launch operations will be able to comply with existing noise regulations, given that they will take place from a licensed aerodrome. Further analysis of the potential impact of noise will be carried out when a spaceport location is identified and the type of operations to be carried out from it decided. A spaceport operator would be expected to have planning permission for the use of the spaceport to carry out spaceflight activities, and the impact of noise will have been assessed as part of this planning permission.

Nevertheless, I accept the concerns about noise that have been raised by Members on both sides of the House. If your Lordships will allow me, I will therefore reflect further on the points made but in the light of those assurances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 34.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this debate. I have mixed views about Prestwick: I have operated from it and done some training there. Sadly, I once burst two tyres there on a 747, so being there was not altogether an undiluted pleasure. It also has a runway that can be used in both directions but the other one points at Glasgow, roughly speaking.

I am very pleased that the Minister said he is going to reflect on this point. Of course, I entirely understand the importance of the clause and of protecting operators. We do not want to struggle with crafting an amendment that gives the Bill more teeth to help residents, but we might have to. It would be much better if the Government could put the issue of noise per se in the Bill, so that it has to be considered in the various processes. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I rise to speak to whether Clauses 38 and 40 should stand part of the Bill. The issue is about land, and Clause 38 deals with the powers to obtain rights over land. The noble Lord has written me a splendid letter—not that I am suggesting that any of his other letters were not splendid—in which, on page 4, he said:

“To enable the safe operation of spaceports, particularly during launch, the Bill makes provision to allow minimal rights over land. I strongly believe that these powers are proportionate and ensure that the rights of landowners are respected”.


I have had a look at Clause 38, and it did not feel very minimal. I shall read the bits that I think are important. First, subsection (1) says:

“The Secretary of State may make an order under this section if satisfied that it is expedient to do so—


(a) to secure the safe and efficient use for the carrying out of spaceflight activities of any land which is vested in a qualifying person or which a qualifying person proposes to acquire,


(b) to secure the provision of any services required in relation to any such land, or


(c) to secure that spacecraft and carrier aircraft may be navigated safely”.


Subsection (3) defines three qualifying persons, the third being the,

“holder of a spaceport licence”.

Subsection (4) starts to set out what may be granted by such an order. Subsection (4)(b) refers to,

“rights to carry out and maintain works on any land”,

and subsection (4)(c) to,

“rights to install and maintain structures and apparatus on, under or over any land”.

Subsection (5) says:

“An order under this section may—


(a) include provision authorising persons to enter any land for the purpose of carrying out, maintaining, installing or removing any works, structures or apparatus”.


Subsection (10) says:

“For the purposes of this section, a reference to carrying out works on land includes a reference to excavating the land or carrying out levelling operations on the land”.


I am not a lawyer, but my recollection is that the concept of ownership is related to the concept of enjoyment. For ownership to be real, you must be able to enjoy what you own. To say, as the Minister does in his letter:

“I can assure you that the Bill does not give spaceport or range control operators powers to acquire land, or for the Secretary of State to do so on their behalf”,


really is not honest. Well, I do not want to say that it is dishonest, but it is not truthful.

You do not enjoy a piece of land when someone can come in, carry out and maintain works, or install a 50-foot tower in your back garden. That is not enjoying the land. The Bill stresses that it can be on, under or over your piece of land. You have to allow the appropriate person to enter and to excavate, so you have a JCB in your back garden—you do not have enjoyment of your land. It is useless, hence the land would be valueless.

I hope the Minister will reconsider the wording of this clause. I know that I am going to be told that such an intrusion would never take place, but I should like the Bill to say that it will never happen by recognising that, if these powers are necessary, there must be an appropriate mechanism for a challenge. There is a mechanism, but we need a proper mechanism for a challenge—and, in that, there has to be a mechanism of redress. If these orders are issued, as far as I can see, my land becomes valueless and I am out of pocket. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, and I hope that they will reconsider the clause.

The noble Lord talks about Clause 40 in his letter, saying that:

“The power in clause 40 restricts the use of land for safety reasons during times of launch and landing. This is essential for ensuring public safety and minimising risks associated with launch. The restrictions which can be enacted by Clause 40 are temporary and are only likely to last for a matter of hours. Therefore I do not believe this represents a significant infringement of land rights”.


There is a problem with being told that these things are not going to happen very often. It seems to me that if they are not going to happen very often, they will not be very profitable. This assurance seems a bit like the Wright brothers, in December 1903, saying to the sheriff of Kitty Hawk, “This is not going to happen very often”. The whole point of the Bill is so that it can happen often.

Clause 40 restricts the rights of citizens to the quiet enjoyment of land, and I do not think that we have the proper mechanisms to take account of those restrictions. Similar restrictions have built up over the years on things such as military ranges and so on—but they were built up for reasons of national security, often in tense and difficult times, and they were accepted by society. These ranges are for a civil purpose and I just do not think that the balance in Clause 40 is right. I hope that the noble Lord will give some thought to this and try to improve the rights of citizens in these circumstances.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I feel strongly about these two clauses, because I recognise them. I have been a Minister for whom civil servants have produced such clauses. They always have an answer: you tell the House that it is not going to happen very often, it will never be used badly and nobody in their right mind could think that it would be any trouble. I have always resisted all those, I have to say. I am a Conservative and I believe in the rights of property. I do not believe that anybody should be taking those away. I am also a believer in the human rights legislation, and I do not like the way that the Conservative Party has made comments about it. It has a very clear defence of the rights of property and I am not prepared to go along with such words, if they mean what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I think that they mean. Maybe neither of us is clever enough to understand the hidden protection within them.

There seems to be no protection whatever in Clause 38; the Secretary of State appears to be able to use it,

“if satisfied that it is expedient to do so”.

Expedient is an extremely dangerous word. Expedient means anything that you want to do; that is why you want to do it—it is expedient. I have to say, I would not trust myself with expedience, leave alone trusting anybody else, and leave alone trusting this Secretary of State to be other than expedient. I do not get this clause, and I certainly do not get why it does not have the full panoply of proper means of protection of the people concerned.

I would like my noble friend to point to other areas where the same kinds of rights are given to the Secretary of State, where similar powers are given without any restriction, because I think that this is a very dangerous area. Nobody could be more enthusiastic about space than I—as long as nobody asks me to go in one of these things. It is a hugely important thing and I am entirely on the side of the Government in seeking to do what they want to do. It would be better if we did not have Brexit—then we would get more of it and a great deal more benefit from it, but that is true of almost everything. The fact of the matter still remains that, whatever happens, if we do or if we do not, this will affect people in this country and their rights to property. I do think that this clause, in its present form, should be presented by any Government, least of all by a Conservative Government who are supposed to believe in the rights of property.

I say very clearly to my noble friend that my problem with Clause 40 is that the only defence given for this provision is that it will not happen very often and will happen for short periods of time. Indeed, my noble friend said that it is okay because it will happen only for short periods of time. If that is the case, why does the Bill not say that? If it is going to be temporary, why does the Bill not say that? If that is not stated in the Bill, people will say, “The Bill does not say that it is temporary and therefore this time we are going to do it for three months”, or say, “Three months is what we meant by temporary”. I am afraid that is the other argument that civil servants try to use. I am trying to excuse my noble friend on the basis of the advice he has received rather than his determination. This measure seems to me contrary to the political position that he holds. After all, he would consider me rather a “pinko”, so I say to him that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, of course I will not press my objection to the clauses standing part because that was not the purpose of the exercise. The purpose of the exercise was to have this debate, which has revealed serious weaknesses in the Bill. The Minister’s response has not been satisfactory and I hope he will further reflect on this issue. If he thinks that we have simply misunderstood the Bill—which is hardly difficult with this Bill—I hope he will set out the detail of how compensation, proper redress and judicial activity may come about under the various clauses. So far, despite careful study by me, my colleague and our researcher, we have not seen those processes there. I hope he will do that, reconsider and introduce new thinking and amendments to meet the concerns. When someone like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and I agree, a Minister should be worried.

With that, I assure the House that I will not oppose these clauses standing part. However, we may come back to them on Report. I want to avoid doing that. Crafting an amendment to give effect to our concerns would be a difficult task but we may be forced to do it if the Minister is not able to give a more favourable response privately and to assure us that he will propose something on Report.

Clause 38 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, Amendment 39 is on a similar theme. It relates to Clause 42 and the operation of orders in relation to the land to be used for a spaceport. A proposal to make an order, or an order itself, under Clauses 38 or 40 may not be challenged in any legal proceedings. Furthermore, such an order becomes operative within six weeks, which is a very short period of time.

On the face of it, these are sweeping powers for the Secretary of State to create rights over land and to restrict the use of land to secure safety. I find it quite difficult to square this clause with the comments of the Minister in relation to the previous debate, in which he assured the noble Lord, Lord Deben, of the legal right to challenge. That is because this clause states specifically that that cannot be done.

The powers referred to in the clause are essentially planning powers, which are normally devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so this amendment is designed to probe how the powers in the Bill that are conferred on the Secretary of State will operate in tune with the powers of the devolved Administrations. We have heard on several occasions that the devolved Administrations are supportive of the spirit of this Bill, but I am surprised, given that it relates so strongly to devolved planning powers, that it makes no direct mention of the devolved Governments. Here I draw a parallel with the Bus Services Bill. That also dealt with devolved powers and referred to the rights of the devolved Administrations in that respect.

As well as planning issues, the Bill deals with the licensing process, which is to be managed at the UK Government level as a UK Government responsibility. I would suggest to noble Lords that there could well be friction between the two sets of powers and between the two levels of government; in fact, it is unlikely that there will not be friction at some point. It is also inevitable that security issues will have to be taken into account, and those powers lie at both the devolved and the UK levels. The point I want to make is that this is a complex picture, so the amendment seeks to formalise the relationship between the UK and devolved Governments and to ensure that they cannot be overlooked.

I have no doubt that those Governments are supportive of the Bill now, but they may not always be so in every case. Good law should seek to allow for every possibility. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 39 and the Motion that Clause 42 should stand part. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, underline why we support devolution, so we would not want this Bill to reduce in any way the responsibilities of the devolved Governments—along with the devolved city state of Prestwick.

Our concern with Clause 42 as a whole is that we do not understand why orders made under what will be Sections 38 and 40 cannot be challenged, but it then refers to a schedule under which they can. We feel that the drafting could be much clearer so that it takes account of the devolved Administrations and does not reflect an apparent conflict between the schedule and the clauses.

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I agree with some of the comments that have been made about the importance of dialogue with the devolved Administrations. The success of a project of this kind depends heavily on a close working relationship with the devolved Assemblies and those responsible within them for supporting activities and investment in and around any proposed spaceport, as well as communicating with local authorities. I think it is inconceivable that the spaceport project should move forward without very close co-operation, for example with the Scottish Government; in fact, that should be at the heart and centre of the consultation and planning for development of potential spaceports in Scotland. On that point, I very much welcome that an amendment has been tabled to that effect, and I hope the Government will find some way of giving comfort to the Committee that this important issue, wherever it is in the United Kingdom, will be recognised and acted upon.

I am glad to report on the first point of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who would expect me to reflect for just a moment on the importance of the land issue relevant to potential spaceports. For example, I am very glad to report to the Committee and place on the record that Prestwick Airport already owns sufficient land, so none of the ground requirements for spaceflight activities would require additional land. The restrictions will be merely in relation to the air volume zone. Depending on the strictness of regulations, the runway, as I have reported to the Committee, is a mere 13 metres short of 3 kilometres—so very long. There may be the need to carry out a consultation in order to process a planning application, but Prestwick Airport would not be impinging on anyone’s land or assets. That should give great comfort to the department to recognise that an early recognition of first-mover status for Prestwick Airport in this context should be granted.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

4: Clause 9, page 7, line 37, leave out “to (4)” and insert “and (3)”

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.

I have read my speech in Committee, which was very good and persuasive. The trouble is that it was also unsuccessful and so, as a student of the Companion, I will not repeat it. However, I would like to say a final word or two on safety. I thank the Minister for the time she and her predecessor spent with us discussing this matter and for the letter she sent us on two points, to which I will come later.

NASA has been in the space business since I was a boy—and that was a long time ago. I have had a brief look at its website and, as far as I can see, it spends £2.9 billion a year on safety and security. However, despite its efforts, it has regularly killed people. The early rocket-powered flight experiments had fatalities; it is often forgotten that the moon programme killed three astronauts on the ground when there was a fire in the capsule; the shuttle programme managed only 135 missions, two crashed catastrophically and 14 people died. That was probably as well as could be done with all that effort, but we are asking the CAA and/or the United Kingdom Space Agency to tackle the same task. I am afraid that I am somewhat pessimistic about what the result will be in the early stages of any UK space programme. I hope in developing the skills they will need that they will spend a lot of time with our American cousins, in particular, stealing as much knowledge as is possible.

As I said earlier, I thank the Minister for the time she found for us. She was kind enough to send us a letter giving assurances about the role of the HSE and single point accountability with respect to safety. I will not repeat the letter because I am assured she is happy to read those assurances into her response. With that, I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, names of Members from our Benches are not attached to these amendments, but we would like to associate ourselves with all four of them. I want to say a few words about safety because it is obviously not in the industry’s interest to operate unsafely; in fact, quite the opposite. It would be a way of hastening its end. So it is not that the industry will set out to operate in a cavalier manner, and that is not what these amendments imply. From my experience of working in industries that have an inherent risk but are not necessarily as risky as the space industry, the greater prominence that safety is given in their operations at every level right up to senior management and in terms of the supervision of organisations, the more likely it is that they will be inherently safe. You can rely on processes and people on the ground to operate safely because of course it is in their interests to do so, but it is always more successful when safety is elevated to the highest possible level. It is with that in mind that we support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I too have spent most of my career in safety-critical environments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his support. It is not directly related to the Bill, but I will take this opportunity to agree with his statements about the essence of a good safety organisation. It is crucial that safety goes from the top to the bottom and that the chief executives and the board, right down to every worker, know that safety is part of their responsibility. I hope that attitude will go through this new industry, especially as we move into the manned spaceflight phase.

I thank the Minister for her assurances. It is important that we have clear, single point accountability among regulators. If it is in the public domain, I would value a copy of the memorandum between the HSE and the appropriate regulators. With those few comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, the amendment relates to the position of the CAA. We tabled a similar amendment in Committee. As promised, I went away and read Hansard carefully, because at the end of the debate I was still not clear about resources. The then Minister addressed a charging regime for assessing and issuing licences for monitoring and so on. Clause 61 gives the CAA and the space agency the powers to charge for their services. We can safely assume that they will charge the commercial rate to cover their costs, but my reservations were also about the development and expansion of the CAA to take on its new role prior to it becoming commercially viable. That aspect was not addressed in the Government’s response in Committee.

I was very pleased to receive a letter from the chief executive of the CAA setting out its viewpoint. As well as referring to the CAA’s power to set charges, it addresses the preparation issue. It says:

“Until the Space Flight legislation is in force the DfT is funding the CAA team that has been established to focus solely on supporting the Government with the development of the Bill and the regulatory framework, so the CAA will be ready to regulate this UK industry once the statutory powers are in place”.


I am very grateful for that additional information and I am glad to hear that the Department for Transport is funding that team, but I press the Minister for a little more detail. I find it quite difficult to get a handle on how big this team is. Perhaps she could quantify the funding that is in place to assist the CAA. Can she provide some detail on training? In working towards such a regulation, the CAA would undoubtedly look at parallels; for example, the regulation of normal aviation. However, it is surely looking across the world at how other countries regulate the space industry. I assume that there is an element of seeking information from other countries across the world, if not of sending employees to train there. I would be grateful for a bit more information to flesh out the assurances that I received from the CAA. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I support the general spirit and direction of the amendment. The task that the CAA and the space agency will face will be very difficult. I hope that the Government will be able to give us further assurances that resources will be made available to power this learning curve. I hope that there will be enough time for the skills to be in place before real applications come before the regulator. It is easy to underestimate just how difficult this task will be for the CAA and the space agency.

[Lord Fox]

The nature of this work, certainly in the early stages, could be quite lumpy. In earlier discussions —at Second Reading, I think—the Minister talked about perhaps only 12 launches a year. There could be moments of great intensity of activity followed by no activity and therefore no income. How will the regulator maintain this level of expertise through what could be feast and famine during that process?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

15: Clause 34, page 25, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 15. We put forward a series of probing amendments in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave a long and detailed response to those, which I thank him for, which helped us understand how the various clauses relating to this whole issue work together. Unfortunately, there is just one point left. It is not at all complicated, and therefore I will not make a long speech about it, but this amendment addresses that single point.

Where the damage to an uninvolved third party exceeds the cap, and the insurance, the state must meet the excess. We are talking about a new phenomenon—flying bombs of one sort or another. The potential for catastrophic damage is there. It may not be very likely, but it could happen. It is potentially significantly more dangerous than the worst conceivable civil aviation accident at present, and it cannot be right that an uninvolved third party who suffers loss does not receive full compensation.

The Government have argued effectively to the House that the industry may need a cap and that it may not get off the ground without an appropriate arrangement. We agree, but if Her Majesty’s Government limit the operator’s liability, they must commit to making up the difference, and put that commitment in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, listening to what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, and the earlier debate about safety, one thing that occurred to me was seeing the newsreel footage of the crash of the “Hindenburg”, just before the Second World War—a crash that virtually ended the airship as a commercial prospect. That is a useful reminder that what may be seen as the next new thing could be disastrously impacted.

The simple message, which seems so obvious, is that if entrepreneurs considering coming into the industry have unlimited liability, they will not come in. If there is no cover—particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, emphasised, for third parties—that would be totally unacceptable. The problem has been spelled out; the Government should face up to those contradictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I think that is a win. I see the noble Baroness nodding, and I take it that the Government will be tabling an amendment in the other place. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox]

My Lords, I am afraid that this is Groundhog Day all over again. We have discussed these issues and I will not go into the economics, save to say that there is huge potential for very high insurance costs for multi-satellite constellation launches. In Committee, the Minister said that work was in hand and would be finalised within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, so the amendment was not necessary. I feel that it is necessary because this is the make or break economically of the nano-constellation-style satellite. Without resolution of this issue, there will be no industry in this regard because it will be too expensive to launch these satellites in this country. For that reason, while the work is in hand—and I accept in good faith that it will be completed—we believe that the amendment should be agreed. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, we support the general thrust of this proposal and hope that the Minister will say sufficiently warm words so that the amendment will not be pressed. I hope that she will be driven by the simple fact that the industry almost certainly will not get off the ground unless the Government can produce some assurance that appropriate legislation will be brought forward at some stage to enable small satellites to be economically effective.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I look forward to my noble friend’s reply and take this opportunity to say how exemplary the Government’s response has been on a range of issues that we have raised. If they responded in this way on a lot of other issues it would be very much easier for all of us. My noble friend has indicated in her delightful and charming way that she thought these amendments were worth while. Can we extend such a response more widely so that we do not have to have acrimonious discussions and then find ourselves with an amendment which is more or less similar to what has been proposed before? This is a very good example of that. People should always say thank you, and I do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

I am sure the House will accept that the Minister wishes to be less precise than the noble Baroness would like her to be, although her spirit suggests that she might move a little towards what is proposed here.

I wish to say two things. I welcome these amendments. They show the care that we all have to take at the extension of ministerial power. Even the small difference between expediency and appropriateness is a big gulf when it comes to attitudes. Expediency is a subjective statement whereas appropriateness can properly be tested in an objective way. I welcome the changes that have taken place.

In the course of the debate it was suggested that other legislation was the same as this. I have looked at the other legislation—I am boring like that—and, having been a Minister, I know that people occasionally put before one a phrase which is perhaps ill advised. The other legislation is not the same—it is rather different. One of the things your Lordships’ House is here to do is to deal with tiny differences which, when they get on to the statute book, become serious. As I take more and more time to deal with questions of climate change and the like, I find that there are institutional barriers to things that are obviously sensible to do because, at some time at some place, no one looked at the wording properly to ensure it did not create circumstances which made decisions more difficult.

As I said earlier, my thanks for the amendments will be accompanied by a warning that it is important to use this House in the way in which it has properly been used on this Bill. My noble friend may feel that a little more in the direction of the devolved Governments would be helpful. Certainly I would like to know more about their willingness to support the legislation as it is. That is the centrepiece of this disagreement and, as we have so few disagreements now, it would be nice to get rid of this one.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to reflect briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has said about the processing of this Bill. We will have a remarkably short Report stage, having had a good deal longer in Committee, because the Minister—I would say at our insistence but it would be unfair to suggest there was any resistance—has been willing to provide a great deal of time in private to work through the Bill in detail. There have been many concessions, which have been moved today and will form part of the Bill. This is an example of what an Opposition do best. The government concessions on land use and so forth add up to as good a deal as we think we are going to get, and the sensible thing for a good Administration to do is to take it. If we go any further we will end up dividing the House. We might or might not win, it then becomes a hostile environment, and things may get worse as a result. Therefore part of the process, unglamorous as it is, is to bank what you can.

I do not want to underestimate this because the Government have gone a long way in their concessions, but I will not recite them. I am pleased that the Minister has brought out the power in Clause 43; if she had done so in Committee I might not have made such a vigorous attack. That is because with our limited resources—I cannot think of a better way of putting it—we did not quite get to Clause 43. Certainly the compensation that Clause 43 refers to in Schedule 8 rounds off the land issues, so they are now as well rounded as they reasonably can be.

I share the view about Amendment 21, which I hope will not be pressed, but it would be good if the Minister could say a little more about it. I hope that the issue of reference to the devolved Administrations, which in successive Bills over the next several months we will be facing, is made a bit clearer. We must look at how it goes into future legislation. With that, I thank the Minister and all who have been involved not so much in this debate but in the wider debates both within and outside the Chamber for coming to what is a pretty good and rounded deal on the land issue.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may cover the other amendments to which the Minister referred. I welcome what the Government have done; she promised to do it and she has, and for that we are very grateful.

This gives me an opportunity to repair an omission from our earlier debates. These were much dominated by the prospect of the Moynihan international spaceport up at Prestwick—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is not in his place at the moment—but I saw something a few days ago that took me back to my youth, if not to my childhood. It was the name Goonhilly hitting the headlines, with the fact that there is to be an £8.4 million investment by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly local enterprise partnership to upgrade Goonhilly Downs. I can still hear “Telstar” in my head as I think of the way Goonhilly captured the imagination of the world many years ago. It is good to know that Cornwall Airport Newquay is also an active bidder for the idea of being one of these new spaceports.

The other factor to bring to mind is that the UK Space Agency says that the global market for space is expected to increase from £155 billion per year to £400 billion by 2030. Although sometimes during the debate in both Houses there was a feeling that these matters are a long way away, they are really just around the corner, and the activities of people such as Elon Musk are proving that to be so. That is why this amendment is so important. We have to give people the assurance that if they go into this exciting new industry, they will not be left with unlimited liabilities, and that public safety will be adequately covered. By her action, the Minister has made sure that the industry is investment-friendly, and that is all to the good.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we raised the issues covered by these amendments in the Lords, and the Minister assured the House that changes would be brought forward in the other place to address those concerns. We are pleased the Government have delivered on those assurances and warmly welcome the amendments. During the passage of the Bill, I referred to early aviation legislation and its failure to envisage the growth of that industry or the impact it would have on our future. These amendments are vital to ensuring that we look not only at the needs of the industry but at the impact it will have on the environment and, importantly, surrounding communities.

When we began the Bill, there was not a huge amount of reference to the environment in it and—as the Minister no doubt finds it hard to forget—there was no mention at all of the word “noise”. We have come a good way since then. The new clause ensures that the impact the project will have on the environment is put front and centre as part of the application process and will be duly taken into account by the regulator. We welcome this and put on record our hopes and expectations that this will be a rigorous part of the application process.

The amendments to Clause 34 will ensure that the uninvolved general public—those of us who are not planning to launch into space any time soon—are fully protected if a catastrophic incident occurs and causes damage. It is right and proper that the Government have afforded their citizens that protection. We thank the Government for listening and acting on our concerns.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords for participating in this short debate and for their support for the amendments to the Bill. Indeed, this cross-party support has been clear during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House. As ever, the scrutiny and analysis of noble Lords has improved the Bill.

The Bill will deliver on the Government’s ambition to take the UK into the commercial space age by enabling small satellite launch and suborbital spaceflight from UK spaceports, whether it be the Moynihan Prestwick one or the McNally Newquay one, as we might now call it. There is no shortage of ambition in the UK, with a number of potential spaceports and launch companies developing plans to offer UK launch services. The Bill provides the modern regulatory framework needed to enable this exciting and empowering opportunity for our thriving space sector, but also addresses the important concerns around the environment and communities. This will help ensure that the UK is one of the best places to start, grow and invest in space businesses.