Space Industry Bill [HL] Third Reading 3.52 pm Amendment
Moved by Lord McNally Clause 67, page 43, line 13,
leave out from “make” to end of line 14, and insert “further
provision for the regulation of spaceflight activities and
sub-orbital activities, and the activities associated with them.”
Lord McNally (LD) My Lords, this...Request free trial
Space Industry Bill [HL]
Third Reading
3.52 pm
Amendment
Moved by
Clause 67, page 43, line 13, leave out from “make” to end of line
14, and insert “further provision for the regulation of
spaceflight activities and sub-orbital activities, and the
activities associated with them.”
-
(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, , 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, , 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, , 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.
-
(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?
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, we debated this issue extensively in Committee
and on Report, and I regret that I have been unable to
convince noble Lords of the necessity of this provision as
drafted.
The wording of the clause—which is why we are keen to
include it rather than the amendment put forward by the
noble Lord, —is consistent with
that contained in Section 60(2) of the Civil Aviation Act
1982, the latter being a power to do anything,
“generally for regulating air navigation”.
A similar power arises under Section 11(1) of the Outer
Space Act 1986 to enable the making of regulations
generally for carrying that Act into effect. That is why we
put forward the wording that we did in the Bill.
As noble Lords are well aware, there are a number of other
regulation-making powers in the Bill, notably around
security and safety. However, we need to ensure that we can
regulate those wider matters relating to spaceflight and
associated activities carried out in the UK that are not
covered by the other powers. For example, this may include
implementation of our international obligations relating to
spaceflight arising from bilateral or multilateral
treaties. We know from our experience in other sectors,
such as aviation, that despite our best efforts there needs
to be the flexibility to deal with any unexpected
circumstances. The Government therefore remain convinced
that this provision, as currently drafted, is needed to
ensure that all aspects of the Bill can be fully
implemented effectively.
4.00 pm
I ask your Lordships please not to mistake this for simple
intransigence. Throughout the Bill, the Government have listened
and acted, and we have worked hard to balance the need for
flexibility against noble Lords’ concerns on the scope of the
Bill. As the noble Lord, , recognised, we removed
the Henry VIII power and placed a requirement to consult on
affirmative regulations in the Bill. We comprehensively reviewed
the land powers, strengthened the position on space debris, noise
and emissions, and accepted the amendment on gross negligence.
However, to unduly limit the scope of this power would mean that
we would need to use primary legislation to make provision in
response to developments in technology, which could hold up the
timetable for enabling safe launch from the UK.
As I have mentioned previously, it is not as if this power is
unlimited; regulations can be made to carry the Act into effect
or to facilitate regulation of spaceflight activities and
associated activities only as set out in Clause 1(1). I therefore
hope that noble Lords will take some reassurance from this
explanation, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
-
My Lords, as I indicated, what we said, the probing of the
noble Lord, , and the Minister’s
reply are in Hansard and will be of use in the other place
when they make their judgment about whether the Bill is
drafted tightly enough in these matters. With that, I beg
leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
A privilege amendment was made.
4.02 pm
Motion
Moved by
-
That the Bill do now pass.
-
My Lords, I thank all those involved for their interest in,
engagement with and scrutiny of the Bill over the past few
months. The UK space industry is a British success story—a
story of invention, innovation and global ambition. The
Bill will take us further, enabling new satellite launch
services and low-gravity spaceflight from UK spaceports,
and supporting our industrial strategy to deliver a
stronger economy that works for everyone.
I thank my predecessor, my noble friend , who took the Bill
through its early stages, and I thank the noble Lords,
, Lord , , and , and the noble
Baroness, Lady Randerson, who provided rigorous scrutiny
throughout this process. I am grateful for the
contributions of my noble friend ; I, for one, will
miss the strong advocacy for a certain location in
Scotland. Finally, I thank policy officials and lawyers
from the UK Space Agency, the Department for Transport and
the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
for their work on the Bill.
It has been a privilege to debate the Bill with noble
Lords, whose knowledge and expertise I have found
incredibly helpful. We have taken on many of the
recommendations of the DPRRC and the Constitution
Committee, and I thank them for their work. The
constructive engagement, conversations and debates we have
had together have led to significant improvements to the
Bill. This is an example of this House at its best, where
proper scrutiny and challenge can—put simply—lead to a
better Bill. Today, therefore, we stand one step closer to
a new commercial space age, and I beg to move.
-
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord,
, the Minister and the
Bill team for their willingness to consider the points we
have raised about the Bill during its passage through this
House. A number of meetings have been held, which we
appreciated, and we welcome the changes the Government have
been prepared to see made to the Bill as a result.
I also thank my noble friend Lord for—I was going to
say “his advice and support” but the reality is that it has
been infinitely more than that. I also thank Grace Wright
in our office for all the hard and vitally important work
that she has done for us on the Bill.
-
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, , in thanking both
the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and the noble Lord,
. Although I teased him
at the time that he was not missed, it is clear that there
was a smooth and orderly passing of the ball to the noble
Baroness, Lady Sugg, who has carried out her role with
great skill and charm and has made herself and officials
available, for which we are grateful. Our Bill team
consisted of Sarah Pughe, who has been a great help to me,
and my noble friends Lady Randerson and . I have enjoyed
working with the noble Lord, , who brings his eye
for detail to these matters, and with the noble Lord, Lord
, who brought his
experiences as an ex-pilot. I will remember two
contributions by the noble Lord, Lord . He reminded us that
a rocket is a controlled explosion, which puts some of the
health and safety aspects into perspective. He also said
that the first civil aviation Act in 1920 completely
underestimated the explosion of air travel that was about
to come. Therefore, those who write off this Bill as a bit
of futurology may be surprised at how soon some of this
comes to pass.
I take pride that the problem of space rubbish has been put
firmly in the Bill. It is now part of the Liberal Democrat
lexicon, along with clean pavements and other matters. It
was a delight to have contributions from the noble Lord,
, who, as a
Minister, made such a contribution to giving the space
industry of which we are so proud its impetus. We all look
forward to the opening of the Moynihan International
Spaceport in Scotland, which I am sure will be a festive
occasion.
One has to say and lead the worry that Brexit casts a long
shadow over this industry. It is important that, if Brexit
were to go ahead, the industry be well protected to make
progress.
Again I thank the Minister and her team for making this
Bill a good example of the House of Lords at work.
-
(Con)
My Lords, I add my gratitude and appreciation to the
ministerial team, both present and past, who have worked so
diligently on this Bill. It was very helpful that the Bill
was published in an early form for consultation in both
Houses, which has led to a series of improvements. My noble
friend the Minister has listened carefully, particularly on
the question of secondary legislation, to ensure that as
much of that as possible was addressed during the passage
of the Bill. Indeed, it will continue to be so in another
place.
This is an important Bill which provides the regulatory and
legal framework now which will take the industry forward.
However, none of us should be under any illusion—while we
can provide the regulatory and legal framework—that we do
not need to work closely with the private sector to make
sure that this is a commercial success. Ultimately, these
spaceports will require close co-operation between
government and the private sector.
My noble friend has mentioned that I have been an advocate
in part for a certain location in Scotland, which I think
was her phrase. The House should be under no illusion
whatever that that location is Prestwick Airport. It is
head and shoulders the best airport to be licensed for
spacecraft activities at the earliest possible stage in
this country. This has been self-evident throughout our
deliberations. All noble Lords will, of course, be welcome
to the opening of Prestwick when it is finally licensed as
the first spaceport in the United Kingdom.
-
(Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether I might be permitted a brief
intervention. I do so with some diffidence and an apology
to your Lordships for not being present on Second Reading,
for diary reasons, although I have sat in on some of the
subsequent parts of the Bill.
I too have an interest to declare. Like my noble friend
, I live quite
close to Prestwick Airport—almost as close as he does, but
on the other side of the runway. However, I am glad to say
that I am on the same side of the argument as him. I
strongly endorse all that he said with such clarity,
efficiency and thoroughness throughout all the stages of
the Bill. Regarding the suitability of Prestwick Airport—I
know that we are talking about the Bill, not just Prestwick
Airport; I had better say first that it was a good Bill and
is now a better Bill as a result of the consideration it
has had—I cannot help but support its case. It is a fine,
well-established airport of long standing. It was a base
for the stratocruisers that left London, on their way to
New York; they stopped there to refuel, both outwards and
inwards. From there, it moved on to another fine record,
with the location of Scottish Aviation. It now has 2,300
aerospace jobs nearby. It is close to the sea and open at
all hours. Really, it is underused, but it has a basic
infrastructure that could receive all the elaborate
infrastructure needed for a space base.
There is a slightly broader point that is briefly worth
making. The fact remains that the Scottish economy is
trailing that of the rest of the United Kingdom, for
reasons that I will not indulge in, for political reasons.
In Scotland, the Ayrshire economy is also suffering to a
considerable degree. It is one of the most socially
deprived areas in Scotland, with one in five people living
in a deprived area—rather more than in the rest of
Scotland. Unemployment is at nearly 8% in Ayrshire,
compared to 5% in the rest of Scotland. There is a strong
case for the triggering of a huge potential economic
payback from the circumstances in which the spaceport would
be located.
The Government made a commitment in their manifesto at the
last election to invest in Scotland. This is an opportunity
to do so.
-
(Con)
My Lord, this is not a Third Reading speech. You are meant
to just quickly say thank you and then we will move on.
-
I will bring my speech to an immediate conclusion. These
are important, but peripheral, points. The essential point
is that the Bill is a fine one and that Prestwick is an
ideal location. I wish the Bill all speed for the rest of
its passage.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.
|
