Space Industry Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-10-18
Topic: Public Lands
Denis Tunnicliffe (Labour, Centre-left): 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.