HL Deb 04 February 1986 vol 470 cc1096-108

8.48 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

One would not want to be frivolous either about the Bill which my noble friend behind me has just moved nor indeed about the Bill which we are now to consider, but perhaps it is a long way between local government matters and outer space. Nevertheless this Bill is an important one. It is intended to enable us to fulfil a number of international obligations concerning the use of outer space. These obligations arise from a series of United Nations conventions, the first and most important of which is the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies—the Outer Space Treaty for short. We signed this treaty in 1967, the year it entered into force. But there are two other conventions which are dealt with in the Bill: the 1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects—which I shall refer to as the "Liability Convention"—and the 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space—or the Registration Convention for short.

Some noble Lords might wonder how we have managed to meet our obligations in the almost 20-year period since the Outer Space Treaty was signed. Simply put, the answer is that we have had little difficulty, since all the outer space activities for which we have international responsibility have been carried on in the public sector. In the case of governmental activities, we have been able to meet our obligations directly, and informal arrangements have sufficed in the case of other public sector activities.

However, with maturing technology, space now provides commercial opportunities as well as scientific and experimental ones. We must anticipate that private sector companies which can see profit in certain sorts of operational satellite services might wish to procure, launch and operate satellites themselves. When a private sector satellite project occurs, we shall need a legal framework to deal with it. This Bill provides that necessary framework.

That possibility is real. An example of a private sector satellite service is direct broadcasting by satellite—or DBS as it is commonly known. Last year, a consortium concluded that it was not a commercial proposition for them at the time, but the situation is being reviewed and the possibility of a commercial DBS project in the foreseeable future cannot be ruled out. Other examples of privately-operated satellites come from the United States, where there are a number of private sector satellites used for domestic telecommunications and, where, as I understand it, they will quite shortly be used for remote sensing.

Turning briefly to the United Nations conventions, those were negotiated in the United Nations Committee of Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and the instruments that it has produced and which the United Kingdom has signed are notable achievements in the development of international law. The obligations that the various conventions impose on the Government, and with which the Bill deals, with can be summarised fairly simply. If there were a United Kingdom private sector satellite project, we should have to authorise and supervise it; we should have to pay compensation—possibly very considerable compensation—if unhappily it caused any damage; and we should have to enter details of any private sector satellites into a register of space objects. I shall now explain those obligations in greater detail and give an indication of how the Bill deals with them.

The obligation to "authorise and supervise" arises under Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, which provides that any "national activities" in outer space must be subject to authorisation and continuing supervision if they are carried on by a "nongovernmental entity". That obligation is dealt with in the first six clauses of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 set the scope of the Bill and ensure that it applies to all national non-governmental activities in outer space. Clause 3 deals with our obligation to authorise, by requiring a licence for such activities. Clause 3 also makes provision for activities to be authorised and supervised by another state if that is more convenient and consistent with the conventions.

Clause 5 provides for supervision of the activities through the use of licence conditions. Those conditions will ensure that our obligations under the United Nations conventions are met. Breach of a licence condition will be an offence—as will be carrying on an unlicensed activity.

Next, there is the obligation to pay compensation. The liability convention makes the Government absolutely liable to pay compensation if an activity for which we are internationally responsible causes damage to another state or to its nationals or companies. We see no reason why the Government should bear that risk in respect of a commercial venture, and Clause 10 of the Bill provides the right to recover any amount the Government have to pay out in compensation as a result of any activities in outer space to which the Act applies. There remains a problem that a licence holder might have insufficient assets to reimburse the Government, but that can be dealt with by using a licence condition to require him or the company to take out suitable liability insurance.

Lastly, there are our obligations under the registration convention. Under that convention, we must keep a register of space objects and furnish the United Nations Secretary-General with certain information about each object on the register. We have so far kept a voluntary register, but Clause 7 of the Bill will put it on a formal and statutory basis. Licence conditions will be used to ensure that we receive the information we need so as to pass it to the United Nations.

I should also mention particularly Clauses 8 and 9. They contain powers to deal with unlicensed activities and with breaches of licence conditions. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to give directions to a person breaking the law if that is necessary to secure compliance with our international obligations. Those directions are enforceable by injunction or, with a warrant issued under Clause 9, by direct action if that should prove necessary in any particular case. Those powers have been included because of the potentially harmful effects of improperly conducted outer space activities.

What I have said about private sector satellites applies equally to public sector, no-governmental satellites such as those which have been launched by the Science and Engineering Research Council and by the University of Surrey. So far, we have been able to fulfil our obligations under the convention in respect of those satellites informally, but there seems to be advantage in bringing them within a statutory framework now that one is being established. We recognise that in some respects scientific satellites ought to be treated differently from commercial satellites, and we have built sufficient flexibility into the Bill to take account of that point.

The Bill imposes the minimum degree of regulation necessary to enable us to meet our international obligations. It contains sufficient flexibility to allow the degree of regulation to be adjusted to the needs of the case. It is, I suggest, a modest measure, but one that is important to the private sector and that will allow the private sector to plan outer space projects with knowledge of how the legal framework will operate. I commend it to the House and beg to move that it be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

8.58 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for having introduced what he has described as a little Bill so concisely and so persuasively. In considering this Bill it might be a good thing if we noted for once and laid some emphasis upon the fact that it has proved possible over the past 20 years for nations with many different objectives and political ideologies, made up of people with different faiths and different colours, to co-operate successfully together.

We become so accustomed to talking about countries whose ideologies differ from our own in somewhat hostile terms that it does no harm to emphasise that the existence of the treaty itself, and of the conventions to which the noble Lord has referred, illustrate that very much behind the scenes, almost entirely out of the public eye and therefore away from public controversy, those conventions and the treaty have, so far as I know, been meticulously adhered to by those concerned. If the noble Lord has any information to the contrary, I shall be very pleased to have it.

True enough, the conventions which follow on from the treaty are now somewhat aged. The Convention on International Liability for Damage caused by Space Objects (Cmnd. 5551) was published in March 1974 and the Convention on the Registration of Objects Lodged in Outer Space was presented to this Parliament in 1978, even though it was concluded on 14th January 1975. It would be helpful if at some time, whether by letter placed in the Library or by an arranged Answer to a Written Question, the ratification can be brought up to date. In looking at the concluding sections of these conventions, one finds that a number of states had not, at the date of publication, ratified them. They may since have done so and it would be useful for us to know just what is the present state of play.

I can understand the necessity for the Government to bring in a Bill at this stage. It has become clear over recent years that operations in outer space are no longer the exclusive province of governments themselves or indeed of government agencies. There are numbers of private companies, either alone or in consortium, who are now in the business of launching rockets to take satellites into orbit. There is the manufacturing of the satellites themselves, their subsequent use for the relaying of programmes, the retransmission of news, pictures, and all kinds of information. These are now becoming increasingly within the realm of the private sector. I am glad that the Government have taken some steps to regulate them.

The practical implications of this in so far as domestically launched satellites are concerned is at the moment very restricted. Most launches of satellites, in terms of the launching of a rocket from a pad into outer space so that it can dispose of its satellites, are carried out either in America on the top of Centaur rockets or else on the Ariane rocket which operates from French Guiana. So far as I know there are no substantial launch pads in the United Kingdom and there are unlikely to be for some considerable time, mainly because of the uneconomic nature of launching satellites by means of a rocket from anywhere that is too far from the equator. For example the satellites launched with the aid of the Ariane rocket, nearly on the equator, can actually be sent up at a lower cost than those propelled by the Centaur from American territory. The differential is about 15 per cent. in cost, or an extra 15 per cent. in payload.

As is probably well known, proposals are being negotiated at present whereby it might be possible to launch rockets from very large tankers at sea, on the equator. That is a possibility. The advantage of such launches is that there is less likelihood of civilians being involved in the event of failure in the rocket apparatus itself. I have not of course mentioned the space shuttle which has had such an unfortunate disaster recently. We all regret that. I think it will be some time before substantial use can be made of the shuttle to put satellites into orbit without government support. Therefore, I think that in the foreseeable future we are likely to rely on rockets.

The whole launching operation and the manufacture, supply, fitting, maintenance and operation of satellites is very expensive. That is why I think the Government are very wise in drawing up the Bill in the widest sense; in particular Clauses 1 and 2. For example, if a British national or a British firm is to participate in the activities that are governed by the licensing provisions of the Bill, it is clear that most British companies will be unable to sustain the entire operation, including launching, themselves.

In practice what will happen, and what it already happening, is that consortia will be formed. One part of a consortium will deal with the manufacture of the rocket; another will deal with the launching; another with the supply of a satellite, and so on. British private interests will participate not from the territory of the United Kingdom but from either French Guiana, using Ariane, or from America, using Centaur, and possibly in the future launching from the sea in the manner I have described—but certainly not within the United Kingdom.

Nevertheless, as the Government have apprehended there will be a British participation in it—British companies and/or British nationals—and it is quite right that the Government should take the view that from wherever the operation is launched, and whatever happens, the people responsible for either the launching or the satellite, its construction, operation and so on, if they are British nationals, in effect should be responsible to the British Government for anything that occurs which throws a liability under the original treaty onto the British Government.

I have one or two queries about that aspect of the matter. Clause 1 states: This Act applies to the following activities whether carried on in the United Kingdom or elsewhere— (a) launching or procuring the launch of a space object". I am not quite sure whether the word "procuring" is sufficient to cover all the operations; or on the other hand perhaps it may be too inclusive.

I invite the noble Lord to explain a little more fully what "procuring" means. For example, let us say that in the United Kingdom there was an individual or a group of individuals who had the bright idea that they ought to gather together x, y, z and a into a consortium for the purpose of launching a satellite into space, securing the advertising revenue for it, marketing it, co-ordinating its construction, and so on. Would the author of the idea, who would possibly be paid a fee for his (or their) services be held to come within the procuring section? If that is so, I fear that the net will be cast very wide.

In declaring a very indirect and as yet remote financial interest in the subject of this Bill, I may say that I am acting as a consultant at the present time for a group of individuals who have this idea very much in mind. I would not want to tender my advice on the basis that, if anything eventually went wrong with the satellite which the consortium had sent up into space, then I as the originator of the idea would suddenly be descended upon by the Government, who would invite me to contribute to their liability. Noble Lords will see exactly what I mean. I just want to define the limits within which that will operate.

The other point is concerned with something to which the noble Lord has already referred; that is, the question of insurance. I assure the noble Lord in advance that were I to be held liable for procuring in this sense my own personal slender means would certainly not run to meeting any bill for a satellite which has descended on the middle of Paris. Of course the question arises of whether one would have insurance in those cases. The noble Lord has referred to insurance, presumably in the belief that insurance for projects of this kind will be easy to obtain. I am very well aware that a number of projects which have gone up in the past and are operating quite successfully have been insured at Lloyd's. Indeed, Lloyd's must be one of the leading markets for this. I should imagine that unfortunately, owing to the terrible disaster of the shuttle, the premiums will go up very significantly in the future.

I wonder whether the Government are prepared to consider a back-up in the case of insurance premiums becoming too extensive in this particular field? Of course there are precedents for this, albeit in different areas. For example, the noble Lord will be aware that in the United States there is a federal deposit insurance for individual deposits with banks of up to 100,000 dollars, and if they fail the state pays out depositors up to that figure. So even in a free capitalist society there is a precedent for the state standing behind a private insurance. I wonder whether the Government have given this aspect any thought, because it is quite clear that with the type of operation that is now envisaged the amount of potential damage is very considerable.

I must not quote my authority for it, but I believe this statement to be true: that there is a degree of minimisation of damage owing to the fact that if satellites are at a very great height they tend to burn up before they re-enter the atmosphere and possibly in some cases the damage is likely to be minimal. It is the launching apparatus that normally presents the greatest hazard to human life and to property.

I observe that the Secretary of State is to license the activities: he may specify by order the activities that will be covered. I think that is right. But, as with other such Bills which tend to be rather important, I am not too happy about that being subject to the negative procedure. I hope that before we reach the next stage of the Bill the noble Lord will have carefully looked through it to see whether in a matter of increasing importance it is not wise to adopt the affirmative procedure so that matters may be more easily drawn to the attention of Members of this House and of another place, rather than it being left to vigilant people to watch for negative resolutions. I think that may be prudent, and the Government would not suffer thereby.

The Government have faithfully followed in the Bill the registration principles set out in the convention. I gather from the treaty, and on the assumption that the treaty has been complied with, that the appropriate United Nations agency already has a complete record of all launchings and objects that have been put into space. There is an obligation on every state to notify the United Nations, which keeps a register, and there is an obligation on individual states to keep their own register.

Already some hundreds of these objects are whizzing about in space or are stationary, as the case may be, although they are moving around in the space in which we are revolving. Is it intended to start the register with what is already recorded by the various states and the United Nations? It would be useful to know from where we start.

These matters do not attract much public attention, but the public, or at any rate the press which could then inform the public, would be interested to know just what is up there. I note that the register is to be public. I hope that from the beginning it will be up to date. I note that a fee will be charged, and I sincerely hope once again that it will be reasonable. Perhaps the noble Lord will indicate at a later stage in the Bill what the fee will be. I think he may be surprised at how much the public take advantage of the facility.

I shall not go over the description that the noble Lord gave, because he did it so well. But I come now to the offences part of the Bill. One phrase fascinates me. Clause 12(3), on page 6, reads: Where an offence committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly". What is the nature of the offence and what will be the punishment? Will it be an indictable offence or a misdemeanour? Will it carry a maximum term of imprisonment, a fine or what? The term "punished accordingly" seems to give the courts remarkable latitude over whether they incarcerate the poor chap for life or let him off with a fine. At Committee stage the Government may have to define that a little more closely. After all, it is the courts that have to enforce the law.

The Bill itself is quite unexceptionable. I repeat that it is something that is required at the present time. I pass no criticism upon the Government for not having introduced it before, because the involvement of British persons or British bodies corporate in these affairs has been comparatively limited. Some corporations have taken part. Dare I mention British Telecom, now in the private sector? British Telecom, making use of Ariane, Centaur or the shuttle, has already sent a number of satellites of enormous use into space. It is a commercial body. It does not come under the category of scientific bodies, to which the noble Lord has referred, or governmental bodies.

Will this Bill, when an Act, be retrospective so far as poor old British Telecom is concerned? Say that half-a-dozen of its satellites cause damage now—I sincerely trust not and I was going to say "Heaven forfend" that anything happens to them—before the Act comes into effect, will it be liable? Will the Act have any retrospective effect at all? I would imagine, in any case, that all people, all companies, all consortia, that are at the moment actively engaged in what we loosely term the space business will pay considerable attention to this Bill. I sincerely hope that they do so. It is absolutely necessary for the proper regulation of their activities. We, on this side, commend the Government for introducing it.

9.22 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, we on these Benches naturally understand the purpose of the Bill and welcome its introduction. I have a few queries and it is perhaps appropriate that I should set them out now. Many of them, and one major one especially, may arise, as I hope, from my misunderstanding of the Bill. If so, the noble Lord can no doubt quiet my apprehensions.

The first query is one of information. Does the passage of the Bill enable the Government now to ratify the three conventions? The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about ratification by other Governments. What about our own Government? I notice that the main convention, the 1967 one, in the form in which it is available to Members of this House today carries the legend on the front that the treaty has not been ratified by the United Kingdom. However, we have, of course, signed it.

Secondly, can the noble Lord the Minister explain Clause 3(2)(b) and Clause 3(3) giving the Secretary of State power to let a lot of people out of the licensing arrangements altogether by order, the order to be laid before both Houses of Parliament? Does this mean that each individual enterprise is to be exempted from the operation of the Act by an individual order to be laid before Parliament? Or does it refer to whole classes of persons? If so, what classes of persons? If it is a case of individual enterprises, which the Secretary of State will be free to exempt, why does he not simply give them a licence? Is not a licence a much more suitable instrument for permitting an individual, whether a corporate legal individual or a flesh and blood individual, to do something, than an order to be laid before Parliament?

Another minor inquiry relates to Clause 6(1). This states that a licence may be transferred without the consent of the Secretary of State in such cases as may be prescribed. Prescribed by whom? What sort of cases do the Government have in mind for this transfer of a licence without the consent of the Secretary of State?

I come now to my main worry. It is a worry about whether this Bill catches enough people, not about the kind of thing it does, which are clearly right, but whether there are classes of legal persons who may find their way through it. Let us look at where it applies. It applies under Clause 1 to activities carried on in the United Kingdom "or elsewhere". Good!—that means "elsewhere" where the United Kingdom Government are responsible, whether dependent territories or ships. Can the noble Lord confirm that? I see him nodding. That is good news. So we are not talking about things which may be done worldwide, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, explained, which may only be able to be done for physical reasons from ships near the Equator.

If we turn to the whole purpose which is set out in the convention, what the convention requires of its signatories, and of civilised nations in general, is this. It says that the responsibility for national activities in outer space shall be borne by "the appropriate state party" to the treaty. That leaves one with quite a lot of alternatives.

In Article 7 it states that each state party that launches or procures the launching of an object is responsible; and each state party from whose territory or facility—presumably including a ship—an object is launched is internationally liable equally. So there is dual responsibility under the convention. This Bill, quite correctly, seeks to give effect to that.

Let us look at the class of persons who may be called to order by the Secretary of State, or licensed, compared with those who may not. Let me announce my worry in advance. My worry is that I do not see how the Bill applies to foreign corporations acting through their own employees in Britain or on British facilities—ships, colonies, etc. We find that the Act applies to United Kingdom nationals and bodies incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom. It does not apply to bodies incorporated under the law of another country.

Turning to Clause 3(2), we find that a licence is not required by a person acting as employee or agent of another". That is to say, only the principal must be licensed. But the principal, so far, we see, is a company incorporated under the law of the United Kingdom, not under the law of any other country.

We turn now to Clause 12(6) and find that: A person other than a person to whom this Act applies"— which I think includes a foreign company"— is not guilty of an offence under this Act ‖ except— (a) an offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, conspiracy or incitement in relation to the commission of an offence under this Act in the United Kingdom"— not elsewhere. That is, not in its dependencies, not in British ships at sea. Or, the foreign corporation can be guilty, under Clause 12(6)(b), of an offence under subsection (3) (liability of directors, officers, &c.) in connection with an offence committed by a body corporate which is a person to whom this Act applies". That is rather obscure. How a person to whom the Act cannot apply can be guilty in connection with an offence committed by a person to whom it does apply is rather obscure. I think that it would be advantageous if the noble Lord, after taking legal advice at a later stage, could spell that out.

My fear is of the foreign registered company which exploits our responsibility without being liable to any responsibility of its own under this Bill as drafted. I hope that I have got this wrong. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain it.

One last worry is about insurance again. I am very glad to hear the noble Lord say that the Government propose to use insurance to the hilt. This is a principle that we on these Benches have long supported.

Therefore in general one must welcome the appearance of insurance, not in the Bill but in the explanatory speech of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is right, but perhaps he did not go far enough when he spoke about the difficulty of getting insurance. Yesterday, in a more heated debate than this one, I asserted that at the moment it was impossible to insure activities in space. I do not know whether that is literally true in every case. Even if it is literally true at present, it may not be true for long. However, it is certainly true that it is extremely difficult to get insured for space activities at all, even at a high premium. I know that the noble Lord would not have spoken to this House about it without being fully informed of the state of the insurance market. I rejoice in what he said. I take it this means that if a person wants to do something and cannot obtain insurance for it, he will not receive a licence for it. That is the right principle and I hope to see it applied in space as well. We believe that the insurance industry is grossly under-used by the Government. As a general principle, we should tell people that they can do something if they can obtain satisfying insurance. That would solve a great many of the problems of permission-giving and licensing in our economy as a whole.

I have one last inquiry. The Bill says nothing at all about the military uses of space. Does the Bill impinge on that? For instance, would a foreign government using a British registered merchant ship in the tropics, using British soil or a British dependency—we have to think of everything; this is not the moment to laugh; this is the moment to get it right—would such a government, using a "British facility", in the words of the convention, to communicate with military space satellites for receiving the read-outs, the encrypted material and so on, fall within the Bill? If not, what is the frontier? And what about foreign registered firms undertaking military research? The Bill says nothing about all this, and at some stage it would be useful if the Government would spell it out. In general I repeat that we welcome the Bill.

9.33 p.m.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for their genuine and broad welcome to this measure which has been introduced in your Lordships' House tonight. I did not realise that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was a consultant in this area. I know him to be a man with diverse and different interests. I find it encouraging that he is particularly interested in this measure which no doubt will enable the House to get through it with the least possible delay.

As both noble Lords have given a welcome to this measure and have raised rather particular questions, the best I can do this evening is to answer as many as I can. I know that your Lordships will be generous enough to accept that I do not have the answers to some of the questions, particularly the legal ones. Noble Lords may be assured that if I do not answer their questions tonight, I shall either answer both noble Lords in writing and place copies of my letters in the Library—which is the convention of your Lordships' House—or we may have to wait until the next stage.

I should like to deal with one or two points that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made. First, I very much welcome his comment that here we have conventions which are some 20 years old, and nations have been able to work in harmony along the lines of those conventions. Let it not be misunderstood: in no way has there been a misunderstanding which has resulted in this Bill coming before your Lordships' House tonight. It is time we had such a measure because of the new frontiers that are being explored.

The noble Lord specifically asked me about breaches of the conventions. I am not aware of any, and I think that that in itself is a tribute to the durabilitiy of the convention. So far as concerns ratification, the latest information I have is that over 80 countries are bound by the outer space treaty; nearly 70 are bound by the liability convention; and over 30 by the registration convention. Additionally the European Space Agency has declared acceptance of the rights and obligations under the liability convention and indeed the registration convention. I think that probably answers the noble Lord on that point.

The noble Lord asked me about the use of the word "procuring" in Clause 1. This is included in Clause 1 since the registration convention and the liability convention include it as one of the ways a state can acquire liability for an object. A person in this instance procures a launch if, for example, he asks Arianespace to launch a satellite for him. The author of the idea—I think that was the noble Lord's own phrase—will not need a licence unless he personally carries the idea through. We would expect that it would normally only be the satellite operator who needs the licence. Others involved in the project, such as the manufacturer or the subcontractors, would not normally procure the launch or operate the satellite, so they would not normally require a licence.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Lord, Kennet, asked about insurance. We believe that certainly the Lloyd's market is robust enough and strong enough, and has a sufficiently high reputation, to insure anything in this world, and in that I include the other, the outer space world.

Lord Bruce of Donington

This world and the next.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

Well, it may be the next. The liability insurance involved in the Bill would, we believe, represent only a very small proportion of the total cost of the operation, unlike the insurance of a satellite and a launcher, which of course are insured. In any case, the state itself is liable for damage under the liability convention. As a result of the introduction of this Bill I shall probably have more detailed information on that at a later stage that I could communicate.

The noble Lord asked about the register. The present voluntary register is kept by the British National Space Centre. It contains details of the four United Kingdom satellites launched since we ratified the registration convention, and one satellite launched before then. The information on that register will be transferred to the new statutory register when it is established. The one space object on the register which was launched before we ratified the convention, has already been notified, and so that will be included.

Regarding the fee for inspection of the United Kingdom register, I anticipate that that would be of a modest nature. The noble Lord will appreciate that the United Kingdom register would only contain details of those registerable under this Act, not of course across the world. The noble Lord moved on to the question of offences and punishment. He asked me what "punished accordingly" means in Clause 12(3). The offences may be tried summarily or by indictment and whatever penalties may be imposed are dealt with in Clause 12(2). We can return to this if the noble Lord wishes, but I assure him that it is adequately covered.

The noble Lord asked me about British Telecom and retrospection. I am advised that none of British Telecom's present activities falls within the scope of the convention, so it will not need a licence. There would be no retrospective effect of the Bill. Communications satellites are currently operated by intergovernmental organisations, so that would be the exclusion there.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me a number of questions. I believe I have answered his first one relating to ratification.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I asked the noble Lord to tell us when the United Kingdom ratified the 1967 Treaty.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, my understanding is that we have already ratified it.

Lord Kennet

When, my Lords?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord that, but I shall do so in the fullness of time. I do not know. The Bill before us is purely to bring into force the convention; that is, our treaty obligations which we signed whenever it was—I mentioned it in my opening remarks.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, it was 27th January 1967.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord. In January 1967 we signed the treaty, which is the ratification.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, on reflection I believe the noble Lord will agree that signature is not the same as ratification. Ratification is a separate act and according to the constitutional convention in this country if legislation is required ratification comes after the legislation, and here is the legislation.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, if I am wrong then I shall ensure that that s corrected. If I have this wrong I shall return to it, but I am fairly confident that we have ratified these conventions. The noble Lord asked me particularly about Clause 6(1), the description of "prescribed". It means prescription by regulations made by the Secretary of State under the powers given in Clause 11. Clause 6 provides for the transfer of a licence from one licensee to another. That might be desired if, for example, a satellite is to be sold while in orbit. Transfer will normally require the written consent of the Secretary of State. That gives him the opportunity to reassess the situation if that is necessary. However, if, with experience of administering the Bill, it appears that there are commonly occurring situations in which consent for a transfer is granted then the Secretary of State can make regulations avoiding the need for written consent.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I may assist the noble Lord by informing him, and through him the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that both of the conventions have been ratified by the United Kingdom. They are both confirmed in the Command Papers which were published on the subject.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite. I thought I was right, but I could not recall exactly when it was done.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me about Clause 3(2)(b) and (3). That deals with the Secretary of State's ability to exclude certain people by order. The purpose of that procedure is to exempt from licensing certain classes of people such as the research councils, not that each licence will necessarily call for an order.

I have dealt with the question of licensing. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, which I think I should answer tonight was his last one. That is: does the Bill effectively impinge on the military use of space? He asked: what about, for example, foreign persons using British facilities? The Bill will not directly affect the activities of foreigners, but if in providing facilities to foreigners a United Kingdom company carries on an activity to which the Act applies, then that United Kingdom company will need a licence.

I think I have answered all the outstanding and important questions which I feel should be on the record in Hansard. I accept that there are one or two, I think perhaps of lesser importance, which I have not directly answered, particularly two of those requiring legal advice which I do not have readily available. If I may, I shall write to both noble Lords and, as I said earlier, ensure that copies are placed in the Library. If necessary, of course we can pursue the matters at a later stage. With your Lordships' agreement, I think I should now conclude and ask that the Bill be read a second time.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.