Space Industry Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-11-14
Topic: Law and Crime
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): Once again, a similar amendment was discussed in Committee. Clause 31 provides for a justice of the peace to be able to issue an enforcement warrant authorising entry or direct action in relation to the irregular or unauthorised carrying out of, "spaceflight activities, operating a spaceport or providing range control services" Clause 32 provides for such enforcement authorisation to be given by the Secretary of State in an emergency where there are safety, national security or contravention of international obligation considerations at stake, and urgent action is needed. Such an enforcement authorisation would remain in force for 48 hours from the time when it was granted and would permit a named person to do, "anything necessary … for protecting … national security … securing compliance with … international obligations", or protecting health and safety. However, despite these wide-ranging powers there is no provision in the Bill for any judicial oversight, as there is with the involvement of a justice of the peace in respect of an enforcement warrant in a non-emergency situation The House of Lords Constitution Committee has expressed its concerns on this point. The committee said that, "we are concerned that such wide-ranging and potentially draconian powers would be exercisable without anticipatory or rapid post-hoc judicial involvement. We draw attention to these enforcement authorisations and call on the Government to consider post-hoc judicial approval of their use" This amendment would provide for an enforcement authorisation to be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours, following the 48-hour period to which I have already referred and for which the enforcement authorisation remains in force In Committee the Government said they felt their approach was proportionate and contained sufficient safeguards to address the concerns raised while retaining the flexibility necessary to deal with the serious risks that the enforcement authorisation process was designed to address. I said in Committee that I would reflect on what the Government had said. I have done so; I hope the Government have done likewise and reflected on what was said during the debate, including the following points First, the Constitution Committee did not feel moved by the Government’s arguments, including on reducing the period of the enforcement authorisation to 48 hours. Secondly, there is no check to ensure that the draconian powers given under Clause 32 have not been abused—and, if there is no check and they have been abused once, it is highly likely that they will be abused again. Thirdly, the argument used by the Government in Committee about the alleged bureaucracy of having to find a justice of the peace is just not credible; and, fourthly, the Government’s argument in Committee that a review by a justice of the peace would place an unnecessary and disproportionate burden and cost on the judicial system really is clutching at straws. Perhaps the Government, if they are not going to change their stance, can tell us what the costs would be and how they would measure incurring those minimal costs against the abuse of the draconian powers provided for in Clause 32 I hope that the Government will be able to say something helpful in reply and will go beyond reiterating the arguments they advanced in Committee, which clearly did not address the concerns of the Constitution Committee. I beg to move.