My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I shall speak also to Amendments 8, 11 and 12 in this group. The Bill requires, in Clause 9(4) on page 7:
“As regards risks to the health, safety and property of persons not within subsection (2)”—
subsection (2) is about individuals who take part—
“the applicant must have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that those risks are as low as reasonably practicable”,
and,
“the level of those risks must be acceptable”.
This set of amendments vests the responsibility for certificating that this level of risk has been achieved in the Health and Safety Executive.
I start by thanking the Minister for the time that he has given to talk to us about the Bill—therefore, I cannot pretend that this is a probing amendment. I for one, and the rest of our Front Bench to a degree, feel that the Bill is premature. The two-year gap envisaged between the Bill becoming and Act and the full emergence of the regulations suggests to us that introducing the Bill at a later time would have been more efficient and allowed fuller scrutiny on a more comprehensive Bill. That is particularly drawn out in the whole safety issue.
The bit of the Bill that I have read requires the concept of the risks to what I shall call uninvolved third parties to be reduced to “as low as reasonably practicable”. That is a very widely used concept in the safety world—a complex concept that weighs benefits against risks and costs.
I shall take a view of the benefits of the Bill. The Minister quoted the importance and value of the space industry to the United Kingdom, and I would not in any way demur from that, but we are not talking about creating it or not, or the space industry carrying on in future or not. We are talking about two capabilities. One is about inserting the satellites into orbit and the other is space tourism. I know that some other things are prayed in aid, but that as a generality covers what the Bill will provide.
There is no way in which we are going to be a first mover in inserting satellites into orbit. The Americans, Russians, French and Chinese are all in this business.
The Minister suggested that there was a special European dimension, and there may be, but to a degree inserting satellites into orbit is likely to become a commodity, especially as satellites become smaller and less weighty. There is a benefit, but the benefit will have to be judged in the whole balance of achieving “as low as reasonably practicable”.
I find the concept of space tourism extremely difficult to grapple with in safety terms. The nearest thing we have had to sustained space tourism was the shuttle programme. There were 135 missions; two ended catastrophically and 14 people died. I doubt that there is genuinely much of a market for tourism which involves a one in 65 chance of dying. The Virgin Galactic programme has also been mentioned. This has so far resulted in one destroyed aircraft and one dead pilot. Broadly speaking, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act requires that an activity where an employee runs a risk of more than one in 1,000 is unacceptable and should simply not happen. I find it difficult to believe that, with the risks apparent at the moment, space tourism would be certificated in this country in the near future.
Although the benefits of the industry as a whole are valid, it is less clear how great they are for this particular capability. They would also need to be balanced in meeting the requirements of the clause that protects the safety of uninvolved third parties, whose exposure is nicely brought out in annexe C to the letter which the Minister was good enough to write to me and some other noble Lords. It stated:
“The current UK aviation regulatory regime prioritises the safety of the aircraft and its occupants and does not directly regulate the safety of third parties on the ground ... If the level of safety for the aircraft and its occupants is sufficient then by default third parties can be considered appropriately protected”.
This approach is clearly not sufficient in this direction, either in its outcome or in its nature.
Generally speaking, there are two ways of developing a safety regime. There is the accident-led way: an enormous proportion of our safety law—fire law, building regulations et cetera—comes from accidents from which we learn. It may surprise noble Lords to learn that aviation safety essentially has the same basis. When I was involved in the industry in the 1960s, a British-registered jet aircraft crashed about every two years. When I entered the profession it was dangerous, with a chance of dying of about one in 2,000 per annum. Before civil aviation had its many crashes, the military was exploring the edges of the envelope and having similar numbers of them. The industry developed a high-quality investigation regime and slowly learned from these events. It then put them into regulations and co-operation emerged, both in the industry and internationally, which has refined itself into today’s civil aviation regime. I am not questioning its effectiveness, but one has to recognise its background. It is about experimenting, having events and then learning from them. That is my first point in arguing that the civil aviation approach is not suitable for this industry.
Secondly, the hybrid launch concept will not be certificatable within the normal civil aviation system. Basically, you cannot certificate aeroplanes to carry rockets. One has to realise that a rocket is merely a
managed explosion. Those of us who remember the early days of spaceflight know that when rockets go wrong they turn into explosions. Carrying a rocket, these aircraft will be highly specialised and certainly will not fall naturally into any certification regime. As the Minister’s quotation illustrated, the consequences on the ground of an aircraft with a rocket on board crashing will have to be addressed. The presumption that the airplane and its occupants are safe will not be proven to the level by which one can disregard the impact of such a crash.
Thirdly, in a hybrid approach, not only do we have to look at the risks to aircraft used to launch rockets, we also have to look at rocket-propelled aircraft. One of the many ideas used to illustrate the potential value of spaceports are rocket-propelled aircraft, which will be an entirely new area of risk. The Bill allows for vertically launched rockets, and these will need to be assessed. Therefore, I argue that the aviation approach is not appropriate or called for by the Bill. It calls for an ALARP approach, which essentially, as I have already said, balances the benefits against the risks. It is a forward-looking approach and is used in nuclear, the railway environment and safety-critical industries. To meet this requirement one needs competence in the ALARP approach. Our amendments argue that that competence is held by the Health and Safety Executive.
However, as important as the requirement in connection with the body certifying that the level of risk has been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable is the requirement that from the beginning we have a single point of responsibility for safety. For most of my career I have been involved in safety-critical environments. It is almost impossible to stress the improvement in safety whereby an individual accountable to his board or organisation goes to bed knowing that if there is an incident in the area for which he or she is responsible, they cannot say, “That was their fault”, because, at least to some extent, it is that person’s responsibility. The most that person can do is join other parties in their responsibility. The responsibility lies with the individual and the organisation. Therefore, I believe that we need a single authority and an ALARP approach as an integrated whole that can look at the benefits and the risks posed by events and the consequences. We argue that only the Health and Safety Executive, with appropriate professional inputs, can meet that requirement and has the experience and skill to deliver this judgment. I beg to move.