Karl Turner
MP for Kingston upon Hull East · Independent · United Kingdom
“I will call Tom Hayes to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for a 30-minute debate, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“From 1997, the Prime Minister campaigned to scrap single-judge trials in Northern Ireland, yet when I opposed his Government’s plan to bring in single-judge trials in England and Wales, I received hostile briefings and smears about my mental health from the lads in No. 10 Downing Street.”
“It must be absolutely exhausting for the Justice Secretary to hold on to an idea that only he still pretends is a good one. The Mayor of London is opposed to these changes and has tried to persuade the Justice Secretary to bin them. The Mayor of Greater Manchester is opposed to this ludicrous idea.”
“Richard Foord will move the motion. I will then call the Minster to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.”
“Where I think the Prime Minister went wrong was in the shenanigans between those two points: looking around for an excuse for why it had gone wrong. “Just take it on the chin—deal with it!” That is the advice I would have given him, and that is why I am particularly disappointed.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). He and I rarely agree politically, but we do work together constructively in our constituencies for the betterment of the region.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Karl Turner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“I am grateful to the Minister in the other place, who indicated that he would go away and work with officials. Concerns were raised, mainly by my Front-Bench colleagues in the other place and by me in the Commons on Second Reading, about how the Health and Safety Executive will work with the regulators. The Government stated that there would be a memorandum of understanding, but we are still in the dark when it comes to details. I seek assurances from the Minister that regulators have the expertise and resources necessary to ensure that the general public are kept safe when it comes to the potential development of our space industry. I also reiterate that, so far, we have little detail on how the UK Space Agency and the CAA are going to share best practice. We would be grateful if the Minister could shed any more light on that.”
“I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 9, page 7, line 37, leave out “to (4)” and insert “and (3)”. This amendment changes the requirements the regulator must satisfy in order to grant an operator licence to UK Space Port operators. The amendment is merely a probing amendment, and I do not intend to speak to it for very long. We would like the Government to ensure that the regulator must not grant an application to a potential operator unless it has carried out a thorough risk assessment and meets the prescribed requirements as laid out in the Bill. I would like to press the Minister and seek further details on how the relationship between the Health and Safety Executive and the Civil Aviation Authority or UK Space Agency will work, and how best practices will be shared. A lengthy debate in the other place highlighted the concerns.”
“I thank the Minister for his response and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn . Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 10 Grant of spaceport licence”
“I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 10, page 8, line 27, leave out ‘satisfied that’. This amendment ensures that two defined criteria steps are properly defined for granting an application for a space port licence . The amendment is intended to make the legislation clearer about the regulator not granting an application for a spaceport licence “unless satisfied that”—this is from the Bill— “the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to ensure that risks to public safety arising from the operation of the spaceport are as low as reasonably practicable, and…any prescribed criteria or requirements are met.” Speaking purely as a lawyer, I thought the legislation would be clearer to remove “satisfied that”, but on reflection that is probably just semantical. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.”
“I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 11, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (2). This amendment removes the specified limit they must pay in damages to an uninvolved third party in the event of an accident in operator licences.”
“Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister could clear up some of these concerns, which were also raised in the other place, where they were very well put.”
“Although I declare an interest as a lawyer, I did not practise personal injury law and this is not my area of expertise. However, it seems to me that £20 million would cover two very serious non-fatal incidents. It would not be anywhere near enough to cover costs such as living costs and other issues that would arise from serious injury. I want to know from the Minister, if he is prepared to tell me, whether there is a limit on how much the operator or the Government must pay in damages to an uninvolved third party in the event of an incident. It is also not clear who pays if the losses exceed the proposed cap. Are the Government the insurer of last resort? In the unlikely event of a catastrophic incident, would the Government meet the excess above any cap? We are certainly not opposed to a cap. We just want some clarity on the issue.”
“The amendment relates to the terms of spaceport and space operator licences. I propose to remove the specified limit that must be paid in damages to an uninvolved third party in the event of an incident in the operator’s licences. Clause 11 concerns the terms that may or must be included in a licence issued under the Bill authorising spaceflight activities, the operation of a spaceport or the provision of a range control services. Colleagues in the other place were concerned about the particular wording of this section. We have heard that the amount of liability may be capped. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was mentioned on Second Reading in the Commons that a limit of £20 million had been suggested. I would like the Minister to clarify the issue of the cap, and that is why we have re-tabled the amendment.”
“I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 12, page 9, line 41, at end insert— “(ea) must consult the Environment Agency or (as appropriate) the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Natural Resources Wales; “(eb) must consult any relevant local planning authority;” This amendment ensures that the devolved Administrations are consulted in regards to respective Environment Agency bodies.”
“We believe that the Bill is too vague and have expanded on its wording to ensure that a local planning authority is defined as an “authority with jurisdiction over any location which would be significantly affected by the licence application”. I have seen the Minister’s collegiate approach to the Committee and hope that he will note Opposition concerns, and I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment if he addresses the important points I have raised.”
“I will be brief, Mr Bone. The amendments aim to tighten up some of the ambiguous wording in the Bill. They are intended to ensure that if space activities were to be established under any of the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, their respective environment agency bodies would be consulted before any decision was made on granting an operator licence in their jurisdictions. Will the Minister assure us that he will ensure that the regulator will properly consult the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency or Natural Resources Wales, as well as any relevant local planning authority, before an operator can be granted a UK spaceport licence? I tabled amendment 18 with the aim of properly defining a “relevant local planning authority”.”
“While these amendments intend to ensure that the respective environmental bodies would be consulted were space activities to be established in any of the devolved Administrations—Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—I do not think the Government have gone anywhere near far enough on that. On that basis, I want to push the amendment to a vote. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
“Having checks in place to ensure that this extensive power is not misused will improve the Bill. It is not, as stated by the Minister in the other place, “unhelpful bureaucracy”. I hope the Minister can give assurances that the Government are listening to those concerns and will take them on board.”
“We welcome the fact that the Government reduced the authorisation period from one month to 48 hours, which limits the Secretary of State’s power to a degree. However, we still have concerns that such significant and wide-ranging powers will be exercisable without anticipatory or rapid post hoc judicial involvement. Currently, there is not enough in the Bill to check whether the powers granted under clause 32 will be appropriately or proportionately used by the authorised person. The Minister in the other place stated that the amendment would “impose unhelpful bureaucracy”. We believe that judicial oversight of emergency warrants is crucial to ensure that such excessive powers are not abused, and we do not believe that we are asking for anything unreasonable.”
“The amendment aims to clear up any ambiguity surrounding clauses 31 and 32, which grant warrants authorising entry or direct action and powers to authorise entry in emergencies. Clause 32(2) permits a named person to do anything necessary for protecting national security, securing compliance with international obligations or protecting health and safety. My colleagues in the other place raised concerns about emergency warrants and such vague wording. The power conferred by clause 32 is very extensive and broad. It contains no thorough judicial oversight. The Minister is well aware that the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee also expressed concerns about this aspect of the Bill, which was obviously mentioned in detail in the other place.”
“I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 32, page 23, line 31, at end insert— ‘(4A) An enforcement authorisation must be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours, following the 48 hour period under subsection (7) in which the enforcement authorisation remains in force.” This amendment provides that an urgent enforcement authorisation must be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours, following the 48-hour period under Clause 32(7) of the Bill, during which the enforcement authorisation remains in force. The amendment provides that an urgent enforcement authorisation must be referred to a justice of the peace for evaluation within 48 hours following the 48-hour period under subsection (7), during which the enforcement authorisation remains in force.”
“I hear what the Minister says, but he seems to be saying that, because there is no precedent for a justice of the peace to review such warrants, it is not necessary. He also said that judicial review is available, but he must appreciate that the threshold to succeed in judicial review is very high and that it is extremely costly to the party bringing the proceeding. Frankly, he has not gone anywhere near far enough, and for that reason I am pressing the amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“Again, I pay tribute to my colleagues in the other place, particularly my Front-Bench colleagues, who managed to secure that vital concession. I welcome the Government’s insertion of an assurance that licences can include a condition that an assessment must be done of the noise and emissions that activity will cause, and of the impact on local communities. To say that aircraft noise is rather loud would be an understatement. I can imagine the noise and nuisance if we ended up regularly launching rockets in the UK. Will the Minister therefore give us an assurance that he will look closely at what powers people who live around potential UK spaceports have to protect themselves from such noise nuisance?”
“I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 33, page 24, line 2, leave out subsection (1). This amendment relates to situations where the operator has no liability in order that those living around the spaceports have adequate powers to protect themselves from noise and nuisance . It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. The amendment relates to situations where the operator has no liability, and seeks to ensure that people living around spaceports have adequate powers to protect themselves from noise nuisance. The Bill originally contained no proper provisions to protect people living close to spaceports or under potential flightpaths from noise. The word “noise” was not even included in the Bill. It now is, but only once.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Will the Minister assure us that he will consider the points raised and set out the Government’s position for future statutory instruments under the Bill?”
“My colleagues in the other place raised the point that crucial regulations will not even be consulted on until next year, and will not come before Parliament for nearly two years at the very earliest. I accept that we must consider rapid technological change and advances in the space industry—those points were made by the Minister in the other place—but how can we make sure that we get the proper legislative framework in place for the space industry, which is constantly developing? The Government and future Governments in years to come still need to be held to account, and Parliament needs to scrutinise legislation properly. I am sure that everyone in this Committee Room wants the United Kingdom’s space industry to grow. However, that should not come at the expense of parliamentary scrutiny.”
“It aims to change the Bill so that a significant statutory instrument arising from the delegated powers consistently go through a super-affirmative procedure, which will mean that it is debated in both Houses, rather than the negative procedure, when it would automatically become law without proper parliamentary debate or scrutiny. I will set out the case why such statutory instruments should be under the affirmative procedure each and every time they are brought forward. The Opposition have expressed great concern that the Government are attempting to evade proper parliamentary scrutiny on clause 67. Let me be clear that we support the Bill, but it is a skeleton Bill. It is already difficult to scrutinise properly in its current format.”
“The super-affirmative procedure provides that a Minister must lay a draft resolution and explanatory document before both Houses and take account of any representations. The amendment provides for the use of the super-affirmative procedure rather than, when applicable, the affirmative procedure for considering regulations and secondary legislation. As we know, the super-affirmative procedure provides that a Minister must lay a draft order and an explanatory document before both Houses and take account of any representations. I do not intend to speak for long to the amendment, because it was previously debated at some length in the other place. It is about parliamentary scrutiny.”
“(6L) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6K) in relation to a revised draft resolution, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft resolution in that House under subsection (6J) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House. (6M) In this section the “40-day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft resolution was laid before Parliament under subsection (6B).” The amendment provides for the use of the super-affirmative procedure rather than, when applicable, the affirmative procedure for considering regulations and secondary legislation.”
“(6J) The Minister may after laying a revised draft resolution and statement under subsection (6I) make a resolution in the terms of the revised draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (6K) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft resolution may, at any time after the revised draft resolution is laid under subsection (6I) and before it is approved by that House under subsection (6J), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft resolution.”
“(6H) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (6G) in relation to a draft resolution, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft resolution in that House under subsection (6F) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House. (6I) If, after the expiry of the 40-day period, the Minister wishes to make a resolution consisting of a version of the draft resolution with material changes, he must lay before Parliament— (a) a revised draft resolution, and (b) a statement giving details of— (i) any representations made under subsection (6D)(a), and (ii) the revisions proposed.”
“(6E) If, after the expiry of the 40-day period, the Minister wishes to make a resolution in the terms of the draft, he must lay before Parliament a statement— (a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (6D)(a), and (b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them. (6F) The Minister may after the laying of such a statement make a resolution in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. (6G) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft resolution may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (6E) and before the draft resolution is approved by that House under subsection (6F), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft resolution.”
“(6B) The Minister must lay before Parliament— (a) a draft resolution, and (b) an explanatory document. (6C) The explanatory document must— (a) introduce and give reasons for the resolution, (b) explain under which power or powers in this Act the provision contained in the resolution is made, and (c) give a detailed explanation of provisions included in the resolution. (6D) The Minister must have regard to— (a) any representations, (b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and (c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft resolution, made during the 40-day period with regard to the draft resolution.”
“I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 67, page 43, line 40, leave out subsection (6) and insert— ‘(6) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision)— (a) regulations under section 4(2), (b) regulations under section 5(2), (c) regulations under section 7(4), (d) regulations under section 7(6), (e) regulations under section 9, (f) regulations under section 12(7), (g) regulations under section 18, (h) regulations under section 22, (i) regulations under section 34(5), (j) regulations under section 35(3)(a), (k) regulations under section 58, (l) regulations under section 64, or (m) regulations that create offences, is subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure. (6A) For the purposes of this Act the “super-affirmative procedure” is as follows.”
“(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament within one year of this Act passing, and once in each calendar year following.”—( Dr Philippa Whitford .) This new clause would ensure the Government prepares and publishes an impact assessment of the potential impact on the space industry as a result of the UK leaving the EU. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must make reference to the following areas— (a) membership of the European Space Agency; (b) the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU on research and development and access to funding, including Horizon 2020; (c) the free movement to the UK from the EU of those who work in the space industry; (d) the UK’s participation in the Galileo and Copernicus programmes; and (e) the impact of the UK leaving the Single Market on supply chains within the space industry.”
“Guidance under paragraph (a) may specify matters that are to be dealt with in an assessment of environmental effects only if the regulator so requires in a particular case.”—( Joseph Johnson .) This new clause requires assessments of environmental effects to be carried out before the regulator can grant certain licences, and makes further provision about such assessments. Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill. New Clause 2 Potential impact of leaving the European Union on the United Kingdom’s space industry “(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the potential impact that leaving the European Union will have on the United Kingdom’s space industry.”
“(5) The regulator must take into account the assessment of environmental effects (including any assessment submitted as mentioned in subsection (4) in deciding— (a) whether to grant a licence to which this section applies; (b) what conditions should be attached to such a licence under section 12. (6) The regulator must issue guidance about— (a) the form, contents and level of detail of an assessment of environmental effects; (b) the time for submitting an assessment of environmental effects; (c) the circumstances in which the regulator will or may give a direction under subsection (4).”
“(4) If or to the extent that the regulator directs, the requirement imposed by subsection (2) to submit an assessment of environmental effects may be met by submitting— (a) an equivalent assessment prepared previously in compliance with a requirement imposed by or under another enactment, or (b) an assessment of environmental effects prepared in connection with a previous application. The regulator may make a direction under this subsection only if satisfied that there has been no material change of circumstances since the previous assessment was prepared.”
“(3) In this section “assessment of environmental effects”— (a) in relation to a spaceport licence, means an assessment of the effects that launches of spacecraft or carrier aircraft from the spaceport in question, or from launches of spacecraft from carrier aircraft launched from the spaceport, are expected to have on the environment; (b) in relation to an operator licence authorising launches of spacecraft or carrier aircraft, means an assessment of the effects that those launches are expected to have on the environment.”
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave , withdrawn. Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 68 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 1 Grant of licences: assessments of environmental effects “(1) This section applies to— (a) a spaceport licence; (b) an operator licence authorising launches of spacecraft or carrier aircraft. (2) The regulator may not grant an application for a licence to which this section applies unless the applicant has submitted an assessment of environmental effects.”
“Fuel providers have stated that they require a Government mandate to introduce E10 fuel to avoid a breach of competition law. Will the Minister reconsider the possibility of mandating E10 fuel? If not, will his departmental lawyers work with fuel providers to overcome this legal hurdle?”
“To achieve the Government’s aim to grow the UK space industry from its current 6.5% of the global space economy to 10% by 2030, it is important that the industry has a spaceport facility, which is why it is crucial that we get the regulatory framework right. As I have said already, the Opposition broadly support the Bill, but I hope the Government will work with us to make this legislation the best we can make it, by supporting the very helpful amendments we table in Committee.”
“Industry stakeholders’ main worry with the Bill is the absence of a mandatory liability cap for spaceflight operators—a point made time and again in the debate. We will definitely probe further into this matter in Committee and ask the Government to clarify their position. The Government have given an assurance that a specific regulator—either the Civil Aviation Authority or the UK Space Agency—will act as a single point of accountability for safety on each individual mission. However, there is no detail on how that would work in practice and what the relationship will be with the Health and Safety Executive. That is something else to investigate further in Committee. The Opposition very much share the Government’s ambition for the UK to be a leading player in the global space industry.”
“There is still a worry that the powers set out in clauses 38 and 40, which deal with powers in relation to land use, may encroach on devolved planning powers. We may need to make reference in the Bill to the devolved Administration giving their consent to the use of the powers. Again as the Bill stands, there is currently a lack of judicial oversight for emergency orders. The Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place have expressed concerns about enforcement authorisation, with the former describing the powers in clause 32 as “wide-ranging and potentially draconian”. We may need to table an amendment in Committee to deal with that.”
“The Opposition intend to support the Bill, but we may in Committee need to table amendments on issues on which we have concerns, one of which is the delegated powers that the Bill will give to the Secretary of State. That was one of the matters on which our colleagues in the other place forced the Government to back down, thereby removing the Henry VIII powers. Nevertheless, the catch-all regulation-making power could weaken judicial oversight and may render other delegated powers less meaningful, so we may need to revisit it in Committee. As the Bill stands, clause 2 limits the environmental objectives that must be considered to those set by the Secretary of State. We intend to probe the Government on that in Committee.”
“I must pay tribute to our colleagues in the other place, who have successfully secured crucial concessions from the Government that have ensured that this Bill is now in a much better place than it was at the start of its passage through the other place. It is, though, a skeleton Bill, and the detail is not ready. It has only 71 clauses, yet it provides for 100 delegated powers. We accept that it is not possible to provide all the necessary regulations in primary legislation, but the Government could perhaps have dealt with some of the industry’s concerns. This is yet another example of the Government introducing skeleton legislation while they flail around on Brexit.”
“This has been a good debate, with some good and knowledgeable contributions. Members rightly made strong bids for their constituencies as potential candidates for spaceports, and I commend them for that. Given the time allowed, I do not intend to refer to every speech, but it would be remiss if I did not mention at least the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), not least for his collegiate approach to this debate. Generally, as a Minister, his approach worked well. It certainly improved the ability to legislate in this place and I was grateful for that. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has said, the Opposition are broadly supportive of this Bill and welcome it.”
“The Government’s response to the consultation on UK airspace policy states that they intend to set up the commission by spring 2018. We welcome that decision. However, the commission will not have any enforcement powers or an ombudsman role or any other statutory role, which gives rise to the question as to what it will actually do. Given that the issue of an independent aviation authority or noise ombudsman, as it is sometimes referred to, was put forward by the Airports Commission in 2015, will the Minister give us an idea of when the commission will get the statutory powers that it requires?”
“The UK has the potential to be a world leader in the sector. What are the Government doing to support research into new aircraft and engine technologies? I would also like to ask the Minister about airspace design. There is scope to further reduce noise output through improvements in the way airports, airlines and air traffic management operate. The aviation sector is already investing in new technology and new airspace design to ensure a lower noise impact. However, it has told me it could do more. Improvements such as steeper approaches require additional changes to airspace and operational controls. What are the Government doing to help bring those changes about? Finally, will the Minister provide an update on the independent commission on civil aviation noise?”
“There is more that could be done, but it needs to be addressed as an industry, with the support of the Government. In April 2013, Sustainable Aviation produced a noise road map showing how aviation can manage noise from aircraft operations between now and 2050. Improved technology means that aircraft designs today are 75% quieter than they were 50 years ago. As a result, the population affected by aircraft noise around airports has fallen substantially, despite a significant growth in air traffic. The road map shows that continued investment in research and development has the potential to build on that success and reduce noise from aircraft by a further 65% by 2050. In order to achieve that, the Government need to be doing more to assist the industry and to encourage further research into new technologies.”
“In January 2016, the Aviation Environment Federation published a report stating that, in the UK, more than 1 million people are exposed to aircraft noise above levels recommended for the protection of health. I am aware that Gatwick is trying its best to address the issue through a series of initiatives. In January 2016, it set up an independent noise management board, which includes community groups, industry experts and other stakeholders. Some of the actions it has taken include incentivising airlines through its charging regime to modify aircraft to reduce aircraft noise and increasing continuous descent operations, for which it is the No. 1 performing airport, with a CDO performance level of about 90%. Extending the boundary of their noise insulation scheme by 15 km to the east and west has also been helpful.”
“It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this important debate. The aviation sector is one of Britain’s success stories and, as the UK’s second biggest airport, Gatwick is an important factor in that. Gatwick contributes £5.3 billion to UK GDP, as well as generating 85,000 jobs nationally, with around 24,000 on the wider airport campus alone. However, we all recognise that aviation noise can be a source of constant annoyance to those who live under airport flightpaths, and causes tension between airport authorities, airlines and local communities. As well as the annoyance and disruption, there are genuine public health concerns about exposure to aviation noise.”
“In 2006, the annual local road maintenance study estimated that it would take nine years to repair every pothole on our local roads. Fourteen years have now passed. How long does the Minister think it acceptable for motorists and cyclists to wait to see the necessary investment coming from the Government to repair potholes on our local roads?”