Space Industry Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-16
Topic: Environment
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): But it would exempt the person from some of the duties in Clause 2, which would be covered by the licence. That includes the things the Minister has prayed in aid in rejecting the amendment. Presumably, it does not include the requirement regarding, "the interests of any other persons in relation to the use of land, sea and airspace", or, "any environmental objectives set by the Secretary of State" The regulator could not take those into account when issuing the licence because no licence would be required by the person who was exempt I thank the Minister for his response, but if the Government really are determined to make sure that environmental considerations are covered and mentioned fair and square on the face of the Bill, I put it to him that they would not have used the phrase, "the interests of any other persons in relation to the use of land, sea and airspace" I think they would have been a little more specific, because it begs the question as to how one interprets, "the interests of any other persons", which does not say anything specific about the environment or anything else. It would presumably be left open to the regulator, who could be the Secretary of State, to define what they thought that phrase covered. I ask the Minister to think hard about that on the Government’s behalf, because if, as he said, we are all as one in wanting to make sure that environmental considerations are taken fully and properly into account, why not make that a lot clearer in the Bill The Minister referred to Clause 2(2)(e): "any environmental objectives set by the Secretary of State" "Objectives" implies something fairly wide-ranging, not something that has to be abided by or adhered to. I have already made the point—which I do not make in relation to the current Secretary of State—that an awful lot will depend on the attitude to environmental objectives of the Secretary of State of the day and the extent to which they are taken into account. Different Secretaries of State may have very different views on that point, so, frankly, I do not regard the Bill as it stands as satisfactory—particularly since the Government seem to accept that we are all as one in wanting to ensure that environmental considerations are properly taken into account There are a large number of regulations still to come in the Bill. I know the Minister will say that those affect only minor issues and none of substance, but regulations have a habit of being extended somewhat. I posed the question as to whether regulations could be drawn up that weaken or take away any of the current planning and environmental protections. I also referred to the Henry VIII powers in Clause 66, which by definition enable the Government to alter legislation. I again put it to the Minister that, given the Bill’s current wording, environmental considerations could very much take second place I will withdraw the amendment, but I refer to what the Minister said—perhaps I misunderstood him—on Second Reading: "We do not believe that the Bill engages obligations to produce an environmental impact assessment" He also said: "Environmental impacts are heavily correlated with the type, frequency and location of spaceflight activities. At this stage, it is very difficult to ascertain specific environmental issues. For example, the sensitivities of a site cannot be known until we know the location of the spaceport".—[Official Report, 12/7/17; col. 1268.] I would have thought it extremely difficult to argue, as one could interpret the Minister was arguing on Second Reading, that there could be a spaceport site for which no environmental consideration at all needed to be taken into account, and that there was therefore no immediate need for an environmental impact assessment. That part of the Bill could be strengthened I hope the Minister will think long and hard about what has been said today, and hopefully he can be more positive during the Bill’s later stages. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.