To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made about the risks to the United Kingdom’s critical national infrastructure from space debris.
My Lords, the Government recognise that space debris is a risk to critical national infrastructure due to our reliance on space services, including for communications, climate monitoring, navigation and timing. A summary of the national risk assessment is set out in the UK’s National Risk Register 2025. We invest in space situational awareness, in-orbit servicing and active debris removal missions. We work with international partners through the European Space Agency and the United Nations to address the risk.
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Two weeks ago today, your Lordships’ UK Engagement with Space Committee, of which I was a member, published its report, The Space Economy: Act Now or Lose Out, which highlighted the issue of space debris. There are tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of bits of junk going round the earth. This was dramatically illustrated last week when three astronauts were unable to leave the Chinese space station to return to earth because their spacecraft was hit—probably by space debris.
Satellites are a critical part of our national infrastructure. What strategy are the Government adopting to protect our satellites and other elements of critical national infrastructure and to encourage the UK to play its part in the space economy of the future? Will these issues be raised at the European Space Agency Ministerial Council next week?
My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to thank the UK Engagement with Space Committee for all the work it has done and for the recently published report mentioned by my noble friend.
The Government are strengthening UK space surveillance, tightening regulatory standards and investing in debris mitigation technologies. We are committed to global leadership in sustainable space operations. We committed funding to the debris programmes at the European Space Agency Ministerial Council in 2022. I will ask my ministerial colleague, my noble friend Lady Lloyd, to raise the issue of space debris at the forthcoming ESA ministerial meeting. The UK’s approach on space will balance our national security and growth with expanding the global space economy.
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister and the noble Viscount mentioned the most recent report of the Select Committee. Given what the Minister has said about active debris removal and the European Space Agency, what are the Government doing to ensure that the cost of end-of-life compliance is met by commercial satellite operators and not from the public purse?
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point. The Government are currently funding innovation in debris mitigation and removal. We support the research and development of UKRI and Innovate UK and are funding private companies such as Astroscale and ClearSpace to carry out in-orbit servicing trials. As far as cleaning the outer and inner in-orbit debris is concerned, space is global and we have to work with our global partners in addressing this issue. Conversations are ongoing as to who will pay for it.
My Lords, I suppose I should declare a small interest as having been the progenitor of the space committee. We think of space as infinite. In fact, the usable orbits are a crowd of high-speed rubbish. Just a fleck of paint will do damage. Not long ago, a single bolt took out a French satellite. The only satisfaction was that the bolt had come from another French satellite, but that is another story.
Does the Minister agree that there is a serious economic opportunity here for the United Kingdom to take the lead on the legal and licensing issues in this global space, which is still the Wild West? I leave noble Lords with an image in their minds: it is full of dangerous shrapnel. Sooner or later, an astronaut will be killed.
The noble Lord makes a very interesting and good point there. Space may be the final frontier, but it is beginning to resemble the final landfill; if we are to boldly go where no man has gone before, we must first ensure that we are not tripping over the debris of those who have already been there. He is absolutely right that it is congested up there. I will share some statistics with noble Lords. There are currently something like 12,500 functional satellites, 2,700 satellites that are not working and defunct, 54,000 pieces of debris up to a size of 10 centimetres, 1.2 million pieces between 1 and 10 centimetres, and 140 million pieces between 1 millimetre and 1 centimetre. Yes, we need to clean up, and there is economic growth in there, and our companies will get a share of that.
My Lords, having our own sovereign launch capability is one of the most practical tools we could have for monitoring space debris. It gives us the ability to put the right satellites into the right orbits at the right time without relying on another country’s launch schedule or priorities. What are the Government doing to invest in building spaceports, especially in the north of Scotland—Sutherland —and not just one but a cluster, to enhance our sovereign launch capability?
I thank the noble Baroness for that. We should be very proud of the spaceport up in the Shetland Islands. The Government are investing in that project and I hope we will be making an announcement soon on when we can launch a satellite from there. His Majesty the King is very interested in this whole area of space: he announced the Astra Carta initiative in June 2023 and is bringing stakeholders together to look at how to create a more sustainable space for everybody.
My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Most of our infrastructure relies on signals from space—timing signals for the finance sector, positioning signals, and so on. They can be interfered with in a variety of ways, including by space debris, but they are vulnerable to being hacked and spoofed and all sorts of things. Will the Minister tell us what arrangements are being made to ensure that our critical national infrastructure is prepared for the circumstances in which those signals are seriously disrupted for a significant period? What is our plan B in the event of that disruption?
I thank my noble friend for that point. As it stands, DSIT is playing a major role in developing UK space surveillance. This covers debris and satellites. Through the space clusters and the infra- structure fund, we are backing new ground-based observatories and analytics platforms. We are also co-ordinating with the UK Space Agency, academia and the defence sector to integrate civil and military space surveillance assets into a national capability, thereby reducing dependence on foreign data and supporting strategic autonomy.
My Lords, I will attempt to boldly follow the line of questioning of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, around the US building into its licensing requirements that commercial operators take this into account. It has a regulation that there is five years for the de-orbiting of low earth orbit satellites. We do not do that: we work on a 25-year basis. Surely it is about time we tried to catch up in this area.
The noble Lord makes a good point. We have to work with international partners, whether the US, Japan or the European Space Agency. Currently, the Government are developing space sustainable standards with commercial space sector investors and insurers as part of our wider regulatory reforms. We must bear in mind that reforms have to be outcome-based and have clarity and certainty. This is why we are attracting a lot of foreign-based companies that are establishing operations in the UK, such as Astroscale, which I mentioned earlier.
Following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, we have threats to space infrastructure from hostile actors. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, identified space debris. There is also a threat from space weather. On 11 and 12 November, we saw a significant solar storm hitting the earth, and the National Audit Office is now looking at doing an inquiry, reporting in spring, on that issue. With all that in mind, are the Government considering that we do not necessarily have to digitise every service that we provide and every piece of infrastructure? Perhaps keeping them non-digital would be a way to ensure resilience.