Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Thursday 9th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Monday 27th January 2020
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, aviation has long been at the heart of the United Kingdom’s economic success. This is an industry that contributes at least £22 billion to the UK economy, along with over 230,000 jobs, and it is growing to meet rising demand. Passenger numbers have increased for seven consecutive years, and it is estimated that UK passenger traffic could increase from 292 million passengers in 2018 to 435 million by 2050. A thriving aviation sector brings more visitors to the UK, as well as increased trade and business investment. Our regional airports and the connections, jobs and investment they provide spread these benefits across the country.
Airspace is key, but it is a largely invisible component of the aviation sector. UK airspace is the gateway between Europe and North America, the world’s busiest intercontinental air corridor. Its efficient operation is crucial for managing international air traffic across the Atlantic. It is also some of the most complex airspace in the world, and it has not undergone significant change since the 1950s. It is now struggling to keep pace with the growing demand for aviation and to take advantage of the capability of today’s modern aircraft.
More and more traffic is being squeezed into the same congested areas of airspace. This leads to inefficient flight paths, an increase in carbon emissions, significant passenger delays and poor resilience to disruption, caused by either bad weather or technical difficulties. Without change, the situation will deteriorate further in the coming years. The skies over the UK will continue to get busier as the aviation industry expands and incorporates new types of airspace users such as unmanned aircraft and commercial spaceflight.
The DfT published the strategic case for airspace modernisation in February 2017. It estimated that by 2030 one in three flights arriving or leaving an airport is likely to be delayed by an average of 30 minutes. That is 72 times higher than in 2015 and would be very damaging for passengers, businesses, the economy, communities and the environment.
Our airspace is also increasingly being used by unmanned aircraft, often referred to as drones. There are exciting benefits to society of embracing unmanned aircraft technology. Our police, fire, and search and rescue services all regularly use unmanned aircraft in emergency situations to help save lives. They are also being used to inspect and maintain important national infrastructure, reducing the risk of accidents and driving productivity and efficiency.
Unmanned aircraft technology is expected to bring significant benefits to the UK’s economy in the coming years. However, the careless, inconsiderate and malicious use of drones and other unmanned aircraft poses a safety risk to others. The number of incidents of manned aircraft encountering unmanned aircraft increased from just six in 2014 to 126 in 2018. To maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in aviation, we must: ensure that regulations support sustainable growth; make journeys quicker, quieter and cleaner; and ensure that new technologies such as unmanned aircraft are used safely.
That is why the Government have introduced the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill, which is set out in three parts. The first modernises our airspace, making journeys quicker, quieter and cleaner; the second modernises the UK’s air traffic services, ensuring that aircraft can move safely and efficiently through our skies; the third improves public safety, through greater police enforcement powers to ensure safe and lawful use of unmanned aircraft.
I will now provide more detail on each of the three parts of the Bill, beginning with Part 1: airspace change proposals. For those who may be less familiar with the concept of airspace, it is the volume of space above ground level, basically extending as far as an aircraft can fly. An airspace change proposal relates to changes to managed airspace and the flight procedures and air traffic control procedures used within it. A programme of airspace modernisation is already under way to redesign the UK’s flightpaths to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, and more capacity for the benefit of those who use and are affected by UK airspace. It is being delivered by the aviation industry, and is co-sponsored by the independent regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority—the CAA—and the Government.
The UK’s airspace is highly interdependent, particularly over the south-east region. For airspace change to take place, airports and NATS—formerly National Air Traffic Services—have to work together to take into account the needs of neighbouring airports, as well as their own. If one airport pulls out of the programme, that could delay the whole modernisation programme, which in itself is a very complex undertaking. Should this situation occur, neither the Government nor the CAA currently has the powers to guarantee that airspace change is taken forward.
The Government are working closely with the industry to encourage voluntary participation. However, if an airport is unwilling to participate voluntarily, the new powers in the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to compel airports to bring forward airspace change proposals, ultimately ensuring that the aviation modernisation programme is delivered. This includes airspace changes that direct airports to release underused controlled airspace so that general aviation users can better access it.
On Part 2 of the Bill, air traffic services, it has been 18 years since the establishment of an economic regulatory regime for the provision of en-route air traffic control services. These services are provided by NATS (En Route) plc, helpfully referred to as NERL, which is regulated by the CAA. During those 18 years, the technological and economic landscape of air traffic services has changed rapidly. This has led to growing pressure to improve efficiency and resilience.
The current process for modifying the en-route air traffic services licence is inefficient and impractical. The CAA can make changes to a licence only with the consent of NERL, which is the licence holder, or via a determination by the Competition and Markets Authority—the CMA. This means that important changes to the licence could be delayed or may fail to be implemented at all. The licensing framework needs to be modernised to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, continues to build on the UK’s excellent safety record, satisfies demand, and continues to be resilient.
The provisions in the Bill will allow the CAA to take a more direct and independent approach, and make the licence changes it considers necessary to protect consumers and respond to changes in air traffic services over time. However, it is important to note that the licence holder—currently NERL—will still retain the right to appeal to the CMA against any changes if it so wishes.
The Bill also updates the enforcement and penalties regime to ensure that the CAA can effectively regulate NERL in the interests of users and consumers. This includes the introduction of more proportionate sanctions, bringing the regulatory regime into line with other modern regulatory systems. I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to some minor technical government amendments concerning paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of new Schedule B1 to the Transport Act 2000, which is contained in Schedule 5 to the Bill. These are purely technical amendments, but they aid the CAA’s ability effectively to manage NERL’s licence through the use of penalties.
On Part 3 of the Bill, unmanned aircraft—often known as drones—advances in technology have resulted in unmanned aircraft becoming increasingly available, capable, and easy to use. This has led to an increase in use for commercial purposes and has given a wider range of leisure users and hobbyists greater enjoyment. We are already starting to see the benefits of the commercial use of unmanned aircraft in areas such as surveying and search and rescue. As the technology continues to evolve, unmanned aircraft will be able to fly faster, for longer and at higher altitudes, unlocking the potential for new types of operation.
However, as this technology develops, so do the risks. Careless and inconsiderate users can cause a nuisance and pose a safety risk to others. There are also those who would deliberately use unmanned aircraft for criminal acts, whether to facilitate organised crime, disrupt our national infrastructure or, in extreme cases, commit acts of terrorism.
The drone incursions at Gatwick Airport in December 2018 resulted in major disruption, flight cancellations and significant economic damage, highlighting how significant the impact of malicious drone use can be. But this new legislation is not just about keeping our airports safe. The provisions in the Bill will help protect our prisons, civil nuclear sites and other critical infrastructure, which are vulnerable to the malicious use of unmanned aircraft. Drones are being used to smuggle drugs, weapons, mobile phones and tobacco into prisons. In 2018, there were 168 incidents of drones being used to smuggle items into prison. This places prisoners and prison staff at risk and undermines rehabilitation. In addition, between January 2017 and September 2019, eight civil nuclear sites across the UK reported 22 separate incidents involving drones.
The Government are committed to harnessing the positive impacts of unmanned aircraft and supporting the industry to grow, but this must be done in a way that protects the safety and security of people, other aircraft and sensitive sites. I want to be clear that these risks to safety and security apply to all unmanned aircraft, be they drones, model aircraft or other types of unmanned aircraft, which might become more widely used in the future.
The Government recognise that the majority of unmanned aircraft users already fly responsibly and within the law, and I am acutely aware of, and support, the strong safety culture fostered by the majority of model aircraft flyers and clubs. However, there have been instances of model aircraft being flown illegally. For example, in January 2019, just one month after the Gatwick incursion, a model flyer was convicted of flying a small unmanned aircraft without permission within the flight restriction zone around Heathrow Airport. It is essential that the regulatory framework in the UK reflects the reality of the risk posed by all users of unmanned aircraft.
As the misuse of unmanned aircraft has increased, challenges have emerged in pursuing effective enforcement and investigation. Work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Police Scotland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland has established that there are gaps in the powers available for police officers to investigate and prosecute those suspected of breaking the law.
For instance, there is no existing power that permits a constable to require a person to ground an unmanned aircraft, to stop and search a person, or to enter and search premises under warrant, if a constable believes that a relevant offence involving an unmanned aircraft is about to be, is in the process of being or has been committed. Take the following example: a remote pilot is suspected of breaching the Air Navigation Order by flying in a congested area. However, the police are unable to catch the drone pilot in the act. By the time the police officer arrives at the scene, the drone pilot has already put his drone away in the car. The police constable has no powers to search the car to find the drone and therefore no action can be taken.
The provisions in the Bill will address these operational gaps. The police will be given the necessary powers to require an unmanned aircraft to be grounded, to stop and search persons and to enter and search premises under warrant. They will also be given powers to: require a person to produce documentation or evidence of the permissions or exemptions required under the ANO 2016, such as permission to fly in the flight-restricted zone of a protected aerodrome; require a person to produce evidence of remote pilot competency and operator registration, which became a legal requirement for those wishing to fly small unmanned aircraft on 30 November 2019; and issue a fixed penalty notice for less serious unmanned aircraft-related offences. The Bill will also enable interference with property or wireless telegraphy in order to prevent or detect certain offences involving the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft.
The Government are determined to ensure that unmanned aircraft are used safely and securely, and to provide the right platform to harness the wide-ranging opportunities and benefits they can bring. It is not our intention to make it difficult to realise the potential of this technology, and for those who operate an aircraft responsibly and safely, they should not be an impediment. In fact, those who follow the rules have much to gain from the creation of safer and more secure conditions for all unmanned aircraft operations.
The Bill is critical for ensuring the efficient management and safe use of our skies. It will enable the UK to maintain its position as a world leader in aviation, ensuring that the legal framework keeps pace with new technology and supports sustainable growth in the aviation sector. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction to the Bill. I also declare a number of pecuniary interests, as a former airline pilot and the occasional user of uncontrolled airspace. The Bill deals with the important issues of air space, air traffic and unmanned aerial vehicles. Technology in the aviation sector has developed at an incredible pace and it is right for the Government to introduce legislation to accommodate this.
My party welcomed the premise behind the Bill when it was first announced, pertinently, in the months following the Gatwick incident in December 2018, but it is regrettable that there has been an immense delay in bringing it forward. With it now having been over a year since it was first announced, and with further months before it comes into force, I fear that offences may have been committed in the meantime.
Much of the substance of this legislation derives from consultation, and, while this is welcome, it is notable that it appears that it all took place prior to the 2018 Gatwick event. The incident highlighted the problem at hand, and it is important that the Government listen to those who responded, in particular on why the issue took so long to resolve. Can the Minister confirm whether there has been any consultation on the legislation with those who were involved in the 2018 Gatwick incident?
Moving on to the substance of the Bill, I am sure that the whole House will agree with the need to modernise our airspace. The difficulty comes when we seek to define what it means to modernise. While there is an appeal for flights to be faster and quieter, they must above all be greener and cleaner. Indeed, the Minister referred to this in her introductory speech, which outlined the massive increase in aviation activity that she foresees over the next 30 years. These ideals are not contradictory, but the latter—greener and cleaner—must take priority. I hope that the Government will spell out how they will ensure that growth is sustainable, and their intentions for the future offset of emissions.
The Government’s approach to realising their ambition is to give a greater voice to airports to decide on the changes they need to airspace. I would welcome an explanation of why this approach has been chosen, rather than one that is wholly nationally co-ordinated. I understand that concerns have been raised by smaller aerodromes which feel that their voices may become dwarfed. Indeed, it is not clear to me whether all stakeholders have been fully recognised and by what mechanism their concerns are to be addressed. This is partly because I now appreciate that I do not fully understand the process. I hope that the Minister will facilitate appropriate access to the responsible officials to address the gaps in my knowledge and that of other interested Peers, and hence avoid tedious probing amendments.
Much of the Bill can be summarised as the transferring of powers to the police, the CAA and the Secretary of State. It may be useful for the House to explore at later stages the limit of these powers and the extent to which both institutions are prepared. For example, the Bill provides powers for the police to stop and search individuals who may be flying drones illegally and provides powers for the CAA to require a person to provide information. Can the Government detail whether they intend to collect data on the demographics of individuals whom the powers have been exercised against? Where new powers will require resources, I hope that the Government will explain to what degree they will prepare the institutions.
The Bill will give additional responsibilities to the CAA, but it is as yet unclear whether any additional funding will be given. The CAA has sustained repeated funding cuts under government. As a result, a 2017 survey found that fewer than 10% of employees believed that they had time to undertake important safety activities to an acceptable standard. The CAA, and indeed the police, must be resourced to cope with their new powers and responsibilities. In particular, as regards the new powers for the Secretary of State, I hope that the Government can detail how they will provide for transparency and accountability. Further, I hope that the Government will set out their rationale for the nine Henry VIII powers among the 28 delegated powers.
Finally, I will raise a concern over the possible limitations of this Bill. The technology surrounding drones has developed at an incredible rate, and ownership continues to rise. The Government must keep abreast of the changing environment and respond accordingly. It is possible that this legislation already falls behind recent developments. It seems to ignore the dangers that could arise from drones that fly beyond lines of sight. Ultimately, this legislation must be prepared to deal with the drone technology of the future, and I fear that at present it does not.
The Government are right to legislate for the better management of UK airspace. It is only regrettable that this has not been debated sooner. The principle behind this Bill is one we can all agree on. On that basis, I see no reason to oppose this legislation, although I hope that, as amendments are laid at a later stage, the Government will recognise the limits of the Bill and work with the whole House to address concerns.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Randerson was unavoidably delayed, although I am pleased that she is now with us. Because of that late arrival, she will not take part in Second Reading and I will open for these Benches on this Bill. Thankfully, she has promised to do the heavy lifting when we get to the Committee and Report stages. She has already indicated to the Minister our general support for the Bill. In Committee we will probe the process of consultation in relation to airspace modernisation and suggest some tightening and extension of the regulation of drones.
This is an important Bill because aviation is an important industry, and how well we manage and regulate it impinges greatly on our future prosperity. As the Minister said in a letter to my noble friend Lady Randerson:
“Modernising our airspace is essential for maintaining the UK’s position as a world leader in aviation. The UK’s airspace has not undergone significant change since the 1960s and is now reaching capacity.”
In such circumstances the Bill is not just timely but—as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, indicated—overdue.
In the 21st century any Bill about aviation has to clear a number of hurdles. It has to promote efficiency and competitiveness, improvements—especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, emphasised, in the environment, where we strive to be greener and cleaner—and safety. In the case of drones, it has to help fight against abuse and misuse of drone technology.
Last Wednesday evening I attended the amazing session organised by the Lord Speaker, when we heard from Sir David Attenborough about the climate change crisis. I noticed that Sir David was reluctant to demonise out of hand the industries that contribute to climate change and global warming. The truth is that it is the success of industries such as petrochemicals and aviation that have contributed to the success of the world economy over the last century and the living standards we now enjoy. We will need the skills and know-how of the industries we now brand as polluters if we are to retain the benefits of these industries while dealing with the downsides of their operation.
Airports are a good example. As a young MP, 40 years ago, the first Adjournment debate I obtained in the other place was on aircraft noise over Stockport. The debate was answered by a junior Minister called Norman Tebbit, who, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, had experience as an airline pilot. In raising the question of aircraft noise, I was raising a genuine concern of my constituents, but I never lost sight of the fact that Manchester Airport was, and is, a massive engine of growth and job creation in the north-west region.
Another experience which influenced my attitude to airports was in 1976, when I was sent by Lord Callaghan to Atlanta to meet some of the key officials who would be joining President-elect Jimmy Carter in Washington. I met one of his senior aides in Atlanta City Hall, and I complimented him on the success and obvious dynamism of the city. His reply has influenced my views ever since: “Well, it helps that Coca-Cola has its world headquarters in Atlanta, but the smartest decision we ever took was to campaign to be the southern hub airport for the USA. Airports are like rail heads were in the old west: they create economic activity and growth.” I believe that to be true, so how we use our airspace is very important, in both its economic and environmental impact. We have to assess the measures and powers in this Bill in the light of both.
The same is true of drones, which have quickly moved from futuristic toys to key means of efficient delivery of goods and services, and weapons of war. As with airports, it is easy to demonise drones and, as with almost every other technology, we have to accept that, along with the benefits, there comes abuse by the criminal and the irresponsible. The Bill highlights and provides remedies for abuse of drones, both in terms of airline safety and nuclear and prison security. We will undoubtedly stress-test the proposals in the Bill in Committee. I must confess that, from my time as a Minister at the Ministry of Justice, I retain a puzzlement why there are not the means to disable drones attempting to smuggle drugs or other contraband into prisons. It is important that, in the passage of the Bill, we examine thoroughly the real and present dangers posed. But we should do so while taking into account the warning contained in the briefing we received from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, which says that it is important that the legislation is enabling and does not create unintended consequences that might stifle innovation.
A similar concern was expressed by the Drone Delivery Group, which seeks to co-ordinate industry policy in this area. In its proposal published this month, the group acknowledges that the UK Government have been at the forefront of drone regulatory development since initial guidance published by the CAA in 2001. But it goes on to warn that, despite the very best-intentioned efforts, the overall government landscape is fractured, with different departments sponsoring, or at a minimum working with, different groups and approaches, with no clear national strategy to understand and ultimately develop and standardise an evidence-based UK unmanned air system traffic-management landscape. The House will want to test the legislation before us against such criticisms. As the Drone Delivery Group warns: for the UK to maintain its reputation as being at the forefront of this dynamic emerging industry, industry and government must collaborate in establishing a new approach. As ever, our test for legislation must be the test of efficiency in addressing the problems identified, balanced with proportionality in avoiding unintended consequences.
My attitude to flight controllers goes back to a time, over 40 years ago, when, while in government, I was offered a lift back from a conference in Germany in an RAF HS125, from Bonn to RAF Northolt. Because I was the only passenger, the pilot invited me to sit up front with him and to wear the ear cans to listen to air traffic control. I am a good flyer, but I have never been so scared in my life. The airspace seemed to be full of aircraft. When I expressed some concern, the pilot reassured me, “He’s doing a great job shuffling us through the pack. We’re on a clear run into Northolt.”
That experience left me with the impression that air traffic control is a kind of three-dimensional chess. However, we know that these days the aircraft is flying at its safest when under the control of its autopilot computer. It crossed my mind that air traffic control will be done more and more by artificial intelligence. As I said, I am a good flyer, but can the Minister assure me that in this brave new world, where the aeroplane is flown by computers and the traffic controlled by AI, there will still be a noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, or a noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, somewhere at the controls?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I am happy to support the purposes of the Bill. The first two parts, dealing with our very dated airspace management and air traffic services, are timely. Periodic review and update of airport departure and approach procedures are necessary. No airline operator wants to climb away many miles in the wrong direction for their intended destination than strictly necessary for safe flight. No passenger wants to be delayed by protracted stacking of incoming flights leading to longer time being spent aloft. Adjustments, no doubt with some give and take, must be found. The CAA is well placed to co-ordinate and adjudicate as necessary. Looking to the future, much further, more complicated and, I dare say, controversial air traffic management arrangements will be required if and when urban air mobility, in the shape of unmanned flying taxis, for example, reaches our shores.
The Bill deals only with civil aviation, which raises the question: how does this meld with MoD and Royal Air Force requirements? RAF Northolt is a vital MoD and civilian-use airfield very close to Heathrow. Its departure and approach requirements must be fitted into the overall requirements of a very busy airspace. Elsewhere, Brize Norton, for example, which operates the larger types of RAF aircraft, including passenger and freight, will need departure and arrival flight paths that do not conflict with other civilian routings.
The RAF has representation in the CAA, which is important if MoD and civil requirements for airspace management and air traffic services are all to be taken into consideration and able to work effectively together. However, the Explanatory Memorandum and the Bill are silent on this obvious MoD interest. Maybe I missed it.
Regrettably, I was unable to attend the pre-briefing meeting arranged by the Minister to discuss the Bill, when I should have been able to raise and query these and other MoD-related issues. I have, however, given the Minister prior notice of my points and some others dealing with unmanned aircraft. For the record, I would welcome her response to them, either when winding up or by a letter later.
I welcome the part on unmanned aircraft, too. All flights need to take place without risk of collision. Like a bird strike, a small drone could smash the windscreen and injure those on the flight deck, or seriously damage or destroy the engine of an aircraft. It could be the cause of a fatal accident if a helicopter blade struck even a very small drone. A light unmanned aircraft could well be made unstable and plummet to earth if exposed to the significant wake turbulence created by large aircraft, endangering individuals on the ground.
Keeping all manned or unmanned aircraft well apart is fundamental to safety in the air. The incident at Gatwick in December 2018, which has been mentioned, gave us all a real live example of a highly annoying, disruptive and potentially disastrous event, for which Gatwick, the Department for Transport and, indeed, the Home Office seemed ill prepared. The lack of police or other authority powers to deal with the perpetrators or the offending drones became all too clear. The incentive that this Gatwick fright created—to devise real-time active disruption, even destruction, of illegally operated unmanned aircraft—has started to produce results, but can the Minister confirm that policy and legal cover are in place?
The consultation which led to Part 3 of the Bill covered many areas of weakness or incapacity that emerged from Gatwick’s experience, and the policy and legal approaches required. However, I would prefer part of the punishment for infringement by small unmanned aircraft to be confiscation by the police, and for lesser infringements to attract a fixed penalty notice. Knowing that one’s kit and airframe will be confiscated if the rules are flouted could be a powerful deterrent to illegal use, and a powerful deterrent including a fine or imprisonment is what is required. The risk of disaster if there is a collision, or even a near miss, is so great. Other considerations, such as alcohol tests for operators, come to mind. There may be good reasons why such requirements would not be workable, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments.
I note that permission to search the property of a suspected drone or SUA operator requires the approval of a chief constable, and that includes the chief constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Presumably, similar arrangements cater for infringements of MoD holdings, and not just airfields. I am thinking of, for example, Faslane—the Royal Navy’s nuclear deterrent base—or the Atomic Weapons Establishment, because SUAs might mount more than just a surveillance camera, so possibly lethal dangers that they could carry should be considered.
The Bill stresses the responsibility of the pilot or controller of the drone. Is the Minister satisfied that the wording is comprehensive enough; for example, in paragraph 1 of Schedule 8? Does reference to the person controlling the unmanned aircraft also cover the case of the aircraft following an automated flight programme and not being controlled by an operator on the ground? The constable may have a problem requesting the automated drone to be grounded if that is how it has been programmed.
Referring to the fixed penalty notice section, the Explanatory Notes outline that an offence would be created had a person unknowingly flown within 50 metres of a building yet had caused no harm. It may not be for the passage of this Bill, but I foresee some difficulty in measuring and applying a 50-metre rule, possibly of short duration and without the advantage that a speed camera has of recording evidence on the road.
Finally, can the Minister confirm whether the consent of the devolved Administrations is required for any of these proposals, and if so, has it been obtained?
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I declare two interests. In the course of my professional activity as an executive search consultant, I work with a number of aerospace and defence companies, some of which are involved in UAV or counter-UAV and related technologies. I also hold a humble private pilot’s licence and am the owner and operator of a light aircraft. I recognise that I am in the presence of far superior former commercial and military pilots in your Lordships’ House; none the less, perhaps I have a perspective to offer.
This is essentially a technical Bill. So far, the only criticism I have heard has been from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, concerning why it was not brought forward more quickly. We can look forward to a good and typical House of Lords territory investigation of a technical Bill, but which of course has important policy consequences.
I support the Bill and commend the Government for bringing it forward. As we have heard, it addresses two largely but not entirely separate subjects: management of airspace and the arrangements for regulating the operation of UAVs. Part 1 of the Bill has flowed from pressure to manage our airspace efficiently and effectively and to modernise it. The term “modernisation” seems appealing, but this is a detailed field and any changes to the way in which our airspace is designed and operated have to be made on the basis of hard data. We have seen a tremendous growth in commercial air travel and in the performance of commercial and military aircraft. Among the biggest changes have been in computer technology, both airborne and terrestrial, and, in the advent of satellite communications, the associated global positioning system and related systems.
In the cockpit of my 1930s-designed aircraft I have the same pre-war flight instruments and gauges with which it would have come from the factory—a VHF radio which is more or less the same in operation as one made decades ago—but I also have a Mode S transponder, which identifies the aircraft in flight to an interrogating radar, and a highly sophisticated GPS-driven app which provides extraordinarily rich user-friendly navigation and traffic data that an airline pilot of the 1990s would have thought extremely impressive.
The technology has changed but the design of the airspace remains the same. In these days of high demand for air travel and major environmental pressure to reduce fuel burn and to control noise, there is clearly scope for enhancing the way in which aircraft are managed in controlled airspace. There is no argument against that sentiment, which has led the CAA to develop its airspace management strategy, from which the first two parts of the Bill are derived. This document was developed with a good deal of input from stakeholders utilising public consultation.
While it is clear that modern aircraft monitoring technology—both airborne self-reporting and ground-based—and computing power will fundamentally change what is possible from an airspace management perspective, looking further into the future our commercial airliners, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, noted, already have a great deal of highly sophisticated proven automated flight systems, including for landing. One can envisage a point in the future where ATC and aircraft are more heavily controlled by computer systems than by human-to-human interface via open VHF radio, which is an archaic and poor way of communicating data. I sympathise and empathise with the noble and gallant Lord, hearing all this chatter on an open system, whereas only discrete pieces of information are intended to be communicated from the ground to the air and vice versa. However, that future gazing is perhaps for another day.
As one would expect with a subject such as this, much of the output is highly complex technical detail which, no doubt, will be discussed off the Floor of your Lordships’ House by specialists rather than on the Floor in terms of policy development. However, that is not to say that there are not important matters for the House to consider.
I support the overall thrust of Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, regarding the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions to third parties to co-operate with airspace management proposals. After all, we are talking about a national system that is part of an international system, and which requires an integrated rather than a piecemeal approach. It also requires taking full account of local factors, so it is a hybrid between a fully integrated and a local system. There is a great deal of detail to cover.
My primary interests in the Bill relate to general aviation and the interests I declared earlier. General aviation covers the recreational use of light aircraft, gliders, balloons, microlights and related businesses such as flight training, which is vital to our national economy and to producing the flow of professional pilots that the industry will need in the future and for the UK sector’s competitiveness. |The Government have in the past made formal statements about the value to the UK economy and to the commercial aviation industry of a thriving general aviation sector and about the importance of safeguarding the necessary infrastructure such as airports and airspace.
With that background, I wish to make just a few detailed points. First, the voices of all stakeholders, including general aviation, should be heard when considering the classification and design of airspace. The CAA is not often commended by various parties, but it is a highly professional organisation that serves the United Kingdom extremely well and is known for high standards and deep knowledge. It is to be commended for the way it has gone about consultation, but weight should be given to the voices of all parties going forwards. It is no surprise that many airport operators wish to control ever more of the airspace around them, which can lead to unintended consequences as general aviation is sometimes forced into narrow bottlenecks of uncontrolled airspace.
Secondly, reclassification decisions should be taken only on the basis of an objective analysis of detailed data on a given subject. If it is decided that certain airspace should be reclassified as controlled, then proper arrangements should be put in place for all suitably qualified parties to be allowed access, under control, into that airspace. It is not acceptable for operators to deny GA access on the basis that they have insufficient resources to cope with the traffic in the airspace they have requested. That would seem to be a reasonable and balanced approach.
I was very pleased to hear the Minister emphasise in her introductory remarks that the reclassification of airspace should not be in one direction only. If it is shown that controlled airspace is not being used by controlled traffic, it should be released to uncontrolled use. There has been something of a ratchet effect going in one direction, and I was very pleased to hear that the Minister understands the argument that such airspace should be released when not required.
What is the Civil Aviation Authority’s plan for the network known as the lower airspace radar service, which assists traffic operating at lower altitudes? There have been a number of changes to that service. I know these are complex questions—the Minister might care to write to me in due course, rather than take up the time of the House.
Much of the debate we will have in Committee and on Report will concern drones. Clearly, the technology has developed extraordinarily rapidly and there is a potential benefit to society, commerce and the country; we should not forget that when we are considering the regulation of drones. However, regulation is required; we need a more robust system. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and other noble Lords talked about the incursion at Gatwick, which was as clear a demonstration as one could possibly want of the chaos that can be caused by a highly sophisticated £1,000 drone controlled by an iPhone from many kilometres away. We can only presume that the technology will keep developing and that the pace of development will accelerate. Drones will be lifting greater cargo and in due course, as we have heard, they will be lifting people and becoming autonomous flying systems. It is therefore essential that we put in a framework. It is extraordinarily difficulty to future-proof it, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, told us; none the less, the Bill is an excellent start and I commend it to the House.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction to the Bill. I apologise to her for not coming to her briefing meeting, but I hope that nevertheless she can answer some of my points.
Broadly speaking, I support the intentions of this Bill. I guess I have two interests to declare. One is that I am vice-president of BALPA. That does not mean I have the expertise of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe or others in this House, but I am taking on board many of the points that it wishes to raise.
My second interest is slightly more tenuous, in that I inherited from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, who was here for the earlier part of the debate, responsibility for chairing the committee that produced this report in 2015 with many recommendations. In those days, we called drones “remotely piloted aircraft systems” but we all know what we are talking about. When I took on responsibility for following up the report, I found that Ministers were somewhat reluctant to take much action in the early days. Luckily, that has now changed. There was a Bill that was aborted in the last Parliament and there has been an extension to the protection of airfields, with 5-kilometre geofencing around them—a protection that now applies to many other secure sites. Therefore, we have made progress.
I will concentrate largely on the drone aspect of this subject. I recognise that nowadays we have to accept and support the technology for the many applications of drones that affect our lives and our security, but there is also the key issue of safety in the use of drones in the air and on the ground. In addition, a range of issues raised in the report produced by the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, have not been fully addressed and they are not really addressed in this Bill. Some relate to the safety of other users in the air and on the ground, but there are also the issues of insurance, licensing, privacy and liability, and indeed there is the question of how far the multiple operation of drones by one programme and one operator is compatible with our current regulations.
The Gatwick incident and the anxieties that it raised have obviously increased the public profile of drones and the level of concern. Those concerns relate not just to an individual collision, disastrous though that might be, but to a total system being threatened by a drone being operated wrongly, whether it be the deliberate endangering of the operation of an airport or airfield, terrorism or simply a number of kids getting hold of these machines and causing disruption for a laugh. We have to develop a regulatory system that deals with both the big security issues and an individual drone being used in the wrong way.
The design and the use of unmanned and manned aircraft, and the components of manned aircraft, are important considerations and things that we need to follow through in this legislation. For example, limited testing has shown that the collision between a medium-sized drone and a screen could be catastrophic—for the screen, the flight crew and, potentially, for the passengers. The incursion of a medium or large drone into a jet engine could also be catastrophic. As I understand it, the limited testing that there has been has not turned into a fully fledged test of new aero engines, or indeed a way of ensuring the resilience of existing in-service engines. The certification process for aero engines is therefore not yet in place.
Standard testing is urgently required so that the ingestion of a drone, which could be much more damaging than the ingestion of a bird—which is part of the standard testing and certification operations—is taken fully on board. Certainly at the larger end of drones, very serious damage could be done to an engine, as well as to the body of an aircraft. However, even a small metallic drone could do serious damage, particularly to the operation of helicopter blades and so forth. It is the responsibility of the aerospace industry internationally but also of the Government to ensure that we mandate drone ingestion as part of the certification of aero engines.
We also need some changes in the air traffic control regulations to ensure adequate separation. That has long been a key feature of air traffic control between aircraft to mitigate the effects of turbulence, but it can also apply in relation to the relationship between aircraft and drones. Again, the interrelationship between helicopters and drones is probably the most acute in this respect; it could cause damage to both the helicopter and the drone as well as, potentially, damage on the ground. I hope that all these things can be addressed in the technical detail of the Bill.
I also have a number of points relating to enforcement. In recent years we have seen a big increase in the use of drones in all sorts of quite legitimate commercial operations. We have also seen the use of drones effectively for pleasure and some criminal use of them. I would like to consider in the course of the Bill strengthening the enforcement side so that not only are all operators licensed but—in my view—they have to be over 18, they have a clear record, they are not under the influence of drink or drugs and the way in which they operate and treat those drones is built into the enforcement and checking system and the police powers over them.
There is the question of, for example, deliberately removing in-built safety features from drones such as the geofencing requirements, the requirements for lights on larger drones and the telemetry features of the transponder that allow the drone to respond to the geofencing. If we remove some of those, the drone becomes a much more dangerous machine and, for all sorts of reasons, it is possible that users might be tempted to use it. Indeed, in the extreme case, there is the deliberate weaponisation of drones: terrorists or others might add blades or other damaging features to the drones or use them for carrying arms or explosives. Those are very serious breaches of safety and security, not only of a single aircraft but of a whole aircraft system and the whole area.
I also suggest that the individual machines as well as the operators need to be licensed. That is after all the situation regarding vehicles both in the air and on the ground, and there is no reason why it should not apply in this case.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that one of the problems is that we have such a successful drone industry that it has been loath to allow regulation to take place, but it really has to do so because there is now such a dangerous risk?
Lord Whitty
I agree entirely with my noble friend, and I think there are elements within the industry itself that recognise that. As with other new technologies, an industry begins to come of age when it begins to accept and contribute to better regulation to mitigate the problems in its sector.
I will also be suggesting that we need to look explicitly at the police powers in this area. The powers to ground an aircraft are not clear. The ability to enter premises or stop and search for an aircraft or for elements of an aircraft are also not yet clear. While I recognise the need for FPN for minor offences, it needs to be clearer what those offences actually are. I would also be grateful if the Minister spelled out a little how far we are getting with counterdrone technology and how rapidly we might see that in place.
I had a couple of points on Parts 1 and 2, but my voice is giving out. I hope the Minister can respond to the points that I have made.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, it is my privilege to have been an RAF pilot, flying both fixed-wing pistons and jets. I have flown extensively in Pakistan, Canada and the United Kingdom. More recently, my family gave me an hour in a Tiger Moth for my 80th birthday, so I have gone from one end of the aircraft spectrum to the other. I continue to have a deep interest in this whole industry. Indeed, around the corner from where I live is the Shuttleworth Collection of interwar and model aircraft.
It is fair to say—I do not think the Minister will disagree—that we have not exactly been in the vanguard of control. I looked back at my own references in this House and they go back to 2015, so it is five years since we first started discussing these problems. Certainly, for a long time, the USA, France and the Republic of Ireland were ahead of us in this area of consideration. However, I say a big thank you to my party and the Government now in power. In the general election campaign, it was emphasised that we would legislate on this and here we are, one month on. I congratulate those who have ensured that this happens today.
I too will confine my remarks to the areas covered in Part 3 of the Explanatory Notes. I will try not to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, but we are inevitably covering the same ground to a degree. The key thing that is drilled into any pilot is to keep manned aircraft separate from unmanned aircraft in flight. So far, we have done only a limited amount of testing on the impact of this. That limited amount of research shows that, when problems happen, the result is catastrophic. If something is catastrophic, we ought to take it extremely seriously. We know the risks are particularly bad for helicopters, but it is almost as bad for other aircraft. We know that engine ingestion testing has not yet been completed. That ought to be a priority for those involved in this. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, a lot of work has been done on bird impact. If we can do it for birds, we jolly well ought to get on and do it for drones.
An area which has always been there, but which is even more important now, is wake turbulence. This is a problem for anybody who is flying, but it is nowhere near as big a problem as it is with the difference between a normal manned aircraft and a drone. With wake turbulence, it is highly likely that a drone will be tossed away, with ghastly effects. As the law currently stands, there is no provision for a mandatory minimum wake turbulence separation between drones and aircraft. It seems to me that work should be done on this as a priority.
The Air Navigation Order 2016 includes regulations on unmanned aircraft and new regulations were introduced on 30 November last year. I think it is the view of those of us who take an interest that it would be preferable for deterrence and enforcement if each unmanned aircraft were required to be registered. It has already been mentioned that drivers of road vehicles have to do that. I am the owner of a couple of shotguns. Each of those has to be registered and kept in a locked cupboard which is inspected by the local constabulary. All I can say is that they are an awful lot less dangerous than a situation with a drone.
The Bill includes reference to fixed penalty notices. That is fine, but I hope that when we come to discuss this, we shall differentiate between what I might call small, routine offences and those that are much more serious. If it is serious offences, fixed penalty notices are not an adequate deterrent.
Mention has been made of the need to train the police on their drone enforcement powers. Obviously, that is an area that we have to look at.
There are additional measures, a couple of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I say merely, as did he, that we need to think about these very seriously. On the creation of a criminal offence of weaponizing a drone, that does not necessarily mean putting a bomb on it or anything else; it means altering the drone sufficiently to make it a flying weapon, without it having any combustible material on board. The same applies to safety features being removed.
Mention has been made of drug and alcohol laws coming into line for manned aviation. I think that exactly the same should apply to drones. It is absolutely right that a minimum age should be set, with 18 as an absolute minimum.
Then there is the question of swarming, which I do not think anybody has raised. I suppose that I know a bit more about this, as I am next door to Shuttleworth. I can just see the delight that some talented young man or woman would have in flying two, three or four drones at a time. That has the potential to be exceedingly dangerous, and it should be legislated against. It might be great fun, but it is nevertheless terribly dangerous.
I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for introducing the Bill. We shall work with her in trying to produce good law for this fascinating area of aviation.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I do not intend to rehearse what others have said, only to underline a few things. May I turn to resources? It is essential that the Civil Aviation Authority has sufficient resources to do the job it is asked to do. If it is being kept short of resources, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that it will have the resources to do what is asked of it. They are well respected, hard-working people, but they do not deserve to spend a lot of their time fighting over their budget.
In terms of resources, however, I am more concerned about the responsibilities being put on the police. A lot of legislation has passed extra responsibility to the police, be it looking out for knife crime, looking out for drug crime or looking out for terrorism. I know that the police are hopelessly stretched. I seek an assurance from the Government that, if the police are to be given extra responsibilities under this legislation, the resources at their disposal will be increased so that they can train specialist officers to deal with them. It is not something that—if I may put it this way— PC Plod from around the corner can claim to have specialist knowledge of; there will need to be intelligent people behind any enforcement.
It also strikes me that a lot of private benefit is likely to come from the use of drones. I think all of us can think of things that might happen, from the delivery of parcels by Amazon to people filming for television—all sorts of things. I urge the Government to make sure that the people doing these things for private gain—they will not do them for free—contribute something in the way of licence fees to whoever is to enforce the law, because one without the other is quite meaningless.
I also reiterate what has been said about powerful deterrents. You have to decide who you are dealing with. Finding powerful deterrents for an individual may be quite easy, but for companies such as Sky or Amazon deterrents must have teeth in order to bite. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby: there comes a point when people should not receive fixed-penalty notices, however big, if they do not obey the law. They should come before a court to explain what they are doing and answer for it. We are talking about potentially dangerous activities.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
The noble Lord will remember Christmas a year ago when the drone—or drones—caused so much trouble at Gatwick. The police and the authorities seemed to have great difficulty in identifying the drone and the person controlling it. It is fine to have more police powers, but how will they be able to use them unless there is some form of identification for the drone or the operator?
Lord Bradshaw
I think that probably comes down to licensing operators and drones.
My final point is about the disabling of stray drones, or drones that should not be there. I am no expert on aviation, but has consideration been given to the means of disabling drones engaged in criminal activity or straying from where they should be?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, in general I welcome the Bill. I declare my interest as a pilot, a former airport board member and chair of the inquiry set up by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation last year, looking into the UK’s lower airspace. I will concentrate most of my remarks on airspace elements in the Bill. First, I recognise the importance of the aviation 2050 consultation paper, which was widely responded to. It was extremely helpful in our discussions and will, no doubt, be helpful to the Government. There were general remarks about the constricted nature of airspace in this country, especially in the south of England, where there is a big mix of general aviation and non-general aviation traffic.
As a consequence of the growth in aviation generally in this country, the CAA and the Department for Transport have both rightly recognised how complex UK airspace is—possibly the most complex in the world. Much of the design and principles have not changed significantly since the 1950s or 1960s, as the Minister indicated in her opening remarks. As my noble friend Lord Goschen and other noble Lords have said, there have, of course, been changes in technology. We have moved on, but the administrative and legislative support has not changed to match them. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to change, remove or apply an airspace change by directing a party to make such a change. I hope that the Government have properly considered what sort of ethos needs to apply here. I appreciate that we cannot remove the regulations set out in Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000, but it is important to note that those legislative requirements that govern how the CAA must manage its airspace are still significantly important. I will return to the CAA’s responsibility in a moment. When exercising its function, the CAA should, of course, consider safety, primarily, then efficiency and also the equitable treatment of all airspace users, together with a high level of proportionality. Again, the issue of proportionality is important. Our inquiry last year declared that we should always apply the criteria of safety, proportionality and need when looking at changes in UK airspace.
It is also important that proposals made would inevitably extend the powers of the CAA to some extent. I was interested to hear other noble Lords’ references to maintaining the resources of the CAA in order for it to do its job both now and in the future. I very much believe that the CAA must have some form of independent review procedure in any changes or proposals for change that it wants to make, while maintaining the criteria to which I have already referred. I think it is important, in relation to its resources, that the Government should consider exempting the airspace department of the CAA from the financial return requirement. This would allow it to take on the extra responsibilities without worrying about the financial consequences. I also welcome, generally, a sensible enforcement and appeals approach to future airspace diktats. The inevitability of court action is not conducive to speedy and equitable outcomes and it does little to achieve mutually sustainable outcomes.
Throughout our inquiry we were reminded of the pressing need to be able to remove airspace when it is not demonstrably required. Other noble Lords have also, rightly, pointed this out. It is important that such a reduction in airspace is available to us. The Minister’s predecessor, my noble friend Lady Sugg, reassured me in a Written Answer to a Question I raised in March 2019 that,
“a key policy objective is to ensure that the UK has the minimum volume of controlled airspace consistent with safe and efficient air traffic operations”.
How will the Government actually achieve this? Where is the power for the Government or the CAA to maintain it? Surely this must include powers to remove controlled airspace. Indeed, sometimes one wonders about airport operations, particularly, which build up enormous areas of controlled airspace that are not required in due course. One almost feels that this is a virility symbol, or at the very least some form of asset build-up—a bit like a builder’s landbank in the domestic sector—by which some airports wish to increase their asset value through the size of their controlled airspace. It is almost as bad as the use of slots by airlines, which become almost the most valuable part of the entire operation of an airline.
I welcome the proposals for a review process for airspace change programmes and new powers for the Government to require controllers of airspace to consult where appropriate. This must obviously include circumstances, as I said, where there may be a justification for reducing airspace as much as where there is a wish to increase it.
I shall refer briefly to the issue of pressure on those involved. I very much respect the work of air traffic controllers. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to artificial intelligence and then we heard from my noble friend Lord Naseby, who displays an enormous amount of intelligence which is not computerised but arises from his broad experience. I believe that it is important that we will be relying on individual air traffic controllers—real people—and the pressure on them of any changes we make must be taken fully into account.
I said that I would not refer to much other than airspace, and I do not wish to divert into the question of drones, but I feel that the challenge of the arrival of these unmanned objects puts great pressure and tension on the issue of airspace and those who control it. As technology rapidly improves, it makes it possible to create more flexible airspace. We concluded in our inquiry that systems such as PilotAware and others, coupled with digitisation and the ease of access to NOTAMs—notices to airmen—mean that pilots are far better prepared than they have ever been in the past. Together with all these changes, I hope that the Government will realise that we need to make sure that pilots are adequately trained to deal with not only technology but the changes that are made to airspace and to the rules and requirements upon them of traversing across and outside of airspace.
General aviation in the UK is a substantial contributor to our GDP, greater than some of the other areas we spend a lot of time debating. I will not pick any in particular except to mention that it is greater than fisheries, for example, which is a very difficult subject. We must understand that general aviation is not only important to this country and its future but certainly deserves our full support and encouragement.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to speak at Second Reading and to follow my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, who is to be congratulated on the report he produced, having conducted the inquiry into airspace on behalf of the all-party group. I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation and as a user of airspace as an aircraft operator and general aviation pilot.
I speak in support of the Government. Frankly, I am relieved that they are taking swift action to tackle the problem of airspace reform, which is becoming urgent. UK skies are some of the busiest in the world, due to our geographical positioning—a situation that will get only worse as the global aviation industry grows. As a country, we should not be afraid of a growing industry; we should embrace it. Technological advancement is bringing us quieter, greener and more efficient commercial aircraft, with the eventual goal of full electrification.
Today’s jet aircraft are 80% more fuel-efficient than they were in the 1960s, when they first came into widespread use. Some 80% of aviation CO2 emissions comes from flights of over 1,500 kilometres, for which no other practical mode of transport is available. By 2036, it is forecast that aviation will directly contribute $1.5 trillion to world GDP.
However, industry growth is beside the point; our skies are already overcrowded, even under current traffic levels, and current UK systems are struggling. Therefore, it is right and proper that measures be taken at a strategic level to ease congestion and bring UK airspace in line with modern international standards. It is important that the Secretary of State has these powers to move the modernisation programme forward.
It must be recognised that the Bill does not go into detail about how a strategic modernisation programme should be undertaken by the CAA; it simply gives the power for the Secretary of State to direct that a change should happen. Airspace should be considered a limited common resource. Diverse user groups all compete for the same volumes of sky, and the right of access for everyone must be protected as a central principle of airspace strategy. I always think of it as akin to the right to roam in the countryside. Government, and by extension the CAA, should be the neutral arbiter of airspace, actively protecting the rights of all users to access common airspace resources.
Currently, a worrying attitude exists among airport operators that the size of controlled airspace around a facility is linked to the value of that facility—almost treating it as land attached to a property. This attitude has incentivised bad airspace change proposals based on bogus projected traffic figures. More must be done to prevent airports seeing their controlled airspace as linked with the commercial value of a site. Decisions made on individual airspace change proposals in isolation must be put in the perspective of overall strategic worth and reviewed.
For example, the extremely controversial introduction of class D and E airspace around Farnborough, which comes into force on 27 February, has been sought by the operator based on predicted traffic numbers but was seemingly made without due appreciation for other users. Both the thriving Lasham Gliding Society—incidentally, the world’s largest club of its kind—and the many GA operators in that area will be negatively impacted by the reduction of their “right to roam” in the area. Yet, under previous rules there would be no way to challenge a decision once it was made. Should these ambitious traffic numbers fail to materialise, nothing could be done to return the airspace to common use. I therefore welcome the very important provision in the Bill to introduce a mechanism to review airspace changes once they have been activated, which, astonishingly, is not an option currently available to the CAA.
Controlled airspace in the UK, especially around London, is currently very complex and not fit for purpose. Much of the basic structure managing the skies above our heads was created in the 1950s, as has been said, and is designed to accommodate the performance of, for example, DC-3s, the old Stratocruisers, Constellations and similar aircraft. Current high-performance jets are a world away from these legacy airliners, and our airspace must be updated to reflect it. Many of your Lordships will have seen the article in the Times today detailing a new report, commissioned by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which suggests that aircraft noise is blighting the lives of more people than the Government admit. Clever airspace design, facilitated by the new review mechanism in this legislation, could be used to address this problem and take many more people out of aircraft noise zones.
Modern jets are capable of rapid climbs and descents. It is even advantageous for them to do so, as at higher levels jets are both more fuel-efficient and further away from communities on the ground. This performance gap means that large chunks of controlled airspace are not used at all, with airliners using tight corridors in and out of airports. Large chunks of the air are, therefore, absurdly left with no traffic at all but remain under control. It has always seemed strange to me that large zones, such as in the London area, have angular corners—areas restricted to GA but never used by commercial traffic.
The utterly enormous London Terminal Manoeuvring Area, which covers most of the south of England, in some places restricts light aircraft to flight below 2,500 feet, while jets fly many thousands of feet above. It seems not just bonkers but wrong that light aircraft users are denied access to this airspace for the sake of a decision made decades ago. I see no compelling safety case for zones around London to be as large as they currently are. What is worse, our large zones force traffic that cannot access the zones into tight corridors, where the risk of a mid-air collision is made higher. New powers to review and reduce airspace must be used with vigour to cut down redundant controlled airspace that is never visited by jets. It is right, proper and justified to open up areas of this common air for use by general aviation.
While the Bill is a valuable step towards airspace reform, allowing the Government to direct necessary changes, it does not address the fundamental problems with the CAA’s airspace change process. CAP 1616, the current guidance on the regulatory process for changing notified airspace design, needs to be reformed to improve the way the CAA considers proposals. Process needs to come more in line with principles of planning, moving from an individual to a corporate process, including mechanisms for objection before a court stage, and potentially measures akin to Section 106 agreements for airspace increases. When regulating lower airspace, there must be recognition that some risk is unavoidable. Processes must be altered to ensure that the responsibility for risk in an airspace change does not fall on individuals to facilitate more reasoned decision-making by regulators.
One aspect not considered by the Bill is who will shoulder the cost of airspace changes directed by the Secretary of State—I would very much welcome comment on this by the Minister. Some airfields may be directed out of necessity to submit changes but will potentially not have funding or resources to do so. Care must be taken by the Secretary of State not to impose airspace change processes on businesses that can ill afford to spend resources on such an undertaking.
The Bill also introduces important and necessary measures to allow the police to enforce regulations on drone use. It must be recognised that 99% of drone operators in the UK do so in accordance with the rules and cause no nuisance to the rest of aviation. However, it must also be recognised that drones have the potential to be used against aviation maliciously; it is good that police will now have the powers to manage such incidents swiftly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said about training, to accompany this new law, the Government must make provision to train police officers on the operational use of these new powers to ensure that they are effective in what the Government intend them to achieve, both practically and technically. Evidence-gathering is especially important if drone incursion incidents are to be investigated properly. Police need to be aware of the specific challenges that an aviation environment brings in this process, where a drone can be out of the operator’s line of sight.
Overall, the Bill is a great step forward and brings in much needed powers for the Secretary of State to direct a programme of modernisation. I hope the Government will take this forward—keeping, I trust, a principle of maximum access to lower airspace as a key priority when directing air navigation service providers to make changes.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly on Part 3 of the Bill, entitled “Unmanned Aircraft”.
I understand that the Bill makes new provisions
“for constables to allow them to better enforce UA provisions in the ANO 2016”
and includes
“powers to require an unmanned aircraft to be grounded, powers to stop and search persons or vehicles in specific circumstances, powers to enter and search premises under warrant, and powers to issue Fixed Penalty Notices”.
However, there is one thing it does not do. It does not appear to give the authorities the power to confiscate equipment. I would have thought that critical in making the Bill work. I would have thought it would concentrate the minds of people using equipment irresponsibly or illegally to know that their equipment, some of it quite expensive, could be confiscated in certain circumstances. The Government should issue guidelines on the circumstances in which equipment could be confiscated in the event that they are prepared to move an amendment to deal with this issue in Committee.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I appear unique in being able to speak in the debate without having any direct specialist knowledge or experience of the issues in the Bill.
The Bill confers new government powers on changing the design of airspace, alters the licensing framework for air traffic control and provides new powers for police and prison authorities to deal with the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft, including drones and model aircraft. As I understand it, the terms of the Bill apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, with the unmanned aircraft provisions being subject to legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In February this year, there were approximately 5,000 permitted drone operators in UK airspace. The Department for Transport predicts that there will be some 17,000 commercial drone operators in the United Kingdom by 2024, and another study predicts that there could be 76,000 drones operating in UK airspace by 2030.
Unmanned aircraft are being used to great positive effect across a range of industries and sectors. However, on the downside, unmanned aircraft are also being used more and more in a negative or potentially dangerous way. There has been an increase in incidents of unmanned aircraft coming within unsafe distances to manned aircraft, with six such incidents in 2014 and 126 in 2018, as the Minister said.
There was a significant such incident which caused major disruption at Gatwick Airport in December 2018, although it appears that the consultation in the run-up to the formulation of this Bill all took place prior to that incident. Can the Government confirm if that was the case—a point raised by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe—and, if so, does that mean that they consider that no further useful information or experience could be or was gleaned as a result of the incident at Gatwick Airport by any major party affected or involved that should be reflected in the provisions of this Bill?
My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe has set out the basis of our position in support of the Bill in principle, not least in relation to Parts 1 and 2. Most of my comments will be directed at Part 3, on the new powers in relation to the use or misuse of unmanned aircraft. The current regulatory framework for unmanned aircraft is provided for in the Air Navigation Order 2016 and the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. The use of an unmanned aircraft in a manner designed to cause disruption or harm is, not surprisingly, prohibited, and it is currently also an offence to endanger aircraft with an unmanned aircraft, for drone pilots to fly drones near people or property, and for drone pilots not to keep drones within line of sight. Since July 2018, all drones have been banned from flying above 400 feet across the United Kingdom and within 1 kilometre of protected airport boundaries. Since the end of last November, it has been a legal requirement for all drone operators to register themselves with the Civil Aviation Authority and for drone pilots to complete an online pilot competency test. 1 am not clear whether the not flying within 1 kilometre of protected airport boundaries has now been extended; perhaps the Government could clarify the point, at least for my benefit.
Unmanned aircraft offences under the 2016 Air Navigation Order are mainly summary-only offences, which also means that the existing entry and search powers applicable to indictable offences cannot be used. Part 3 of the Bill develops the regulatory framework for unmanned aircraft to address the issue of misuse of such aircraft. The police are to be given powers to ground unmanned aircraft, to stop and search in specific circumstances, to enter and search under warrant, and to issue fixed penalty notices in certain situations. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has just raised the issue of powers in respect of confiscation and has asked a question on that score. Powers are also given to enable the use of counter-unmanned technologies to prevent the use of unmanned aircraft to commit certain offences under existing legislation.
The Bill contains 28 delegated powers, nine of which are Henry VIII powers, to which my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe referred. Five of these Henry VIII powers concern the provisions in Part 2 regarding air traffic services and four relate to the provisions in Part 3 regarding unmanned aircraft. The Government have stated that these delegated powers, including all the Henry VIII powers, are necessary and justified. That may of course be the case, but at this stage it would be helpful if, prior to Committee, the Government could give their reasons for saying that the use of Henry VIII powers in each of the nine cases is unavoidable or is essential to avoid unacceptable and unnecessary delay or difficulty.
I mentioned earlier the increase in the number of incidents of unmanned aircraft coming within unsafe distances of manned aircraft. What Government evaluation has been carried out of the outcome of a collision between a drone and a manned aircraft —an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Whitty? Further, what steps have been or are being taken in the light of that evaluation? How serious is such a collision likely to be and how serious could it be? Likewise, what evaluation has been made of the likelihood and consequences of a drone being sucked into a jet engine of a manned aircraft? Aviation law provides for a minimum separation distance between aircraft to address the risk from wake turbulence. What is the minimum wake turbulence separation between drones and aircraft? Do the terms of this Bill apply to a greater or lesser degree to all unmanned aircraft or only unmanned aircraft within specified weights and sizes?
The Airport Operators Association has called for mandatory geofencing software in drones and the mandatory identification of drones to help airports identify genuine threats to safety. What is the Government’s response to the AOA on this?
The Bill gives a police officer the power to require a person to ground an unmanned aircraft if the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is controlling the unmanned aircraft. Is it the Government’s view that any unmanned aircraft that is off the ground must, by that very fact, have a person controlling it at all times while it is off the ground, and thus fall within the terms of this provision in the Bill? Are there any circumstances in which it could be argued—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, mentioned—that, at a particular point in time, nobody is controlling an unmanned aircraft that is off the ground?
In addition, what powers are available in this regard if the unmanned aircraft is being controlled by a person operating it from outside the United Kingdom or from within our coastal waters? Does this Bill, as I assume, not address that situation in view of the requirement, which I believe remains, that an unmanned aircraft must always be in the line of vision of the operator?
Schedule 10 deals with fixed penalties for offences relating to unmanned aircraft, but then states:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, prescribe offences as fixed penalty offences for the purposes of this Schedule.”
I believe that the Government have already said that one such offence might be operating a drone too close to a building without realising it. Can the Government, prior to Committee, give some further examples of the kind of offences that it is intended should be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice rather than by the alleged perpetrator being brought to court?
Schedule 10 refers to lack of intent. Does that mean that under the Bill a person endangering an aircraft, manned or unmanned, through carelessness or lack of knowledge or training could be given a fixed penalty on the basis that there was no evidence of any intent to endanger an aircraft? If that is the case under Schedule 10 —at the moment I assume that it is not—that would appear to go against existing general aviation rules that apply to everyone, which provide that:
“A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.”
Will all police officers be trained to be competent—the key word there is “all”—to apply the terms of this Bill in relation to unmanned aircraft? What additional resources do the Government consider that the police will need to be able to use the powers conferred by this Bill to maximum effect?
On the subject of additional resources, what impact do the Government consider that this Bill will have on the responsibilities and workload of the Civil Aviation Authority? Will it be provided with additional resources and, if so, what resources—or is it the Government’s view either that the Civil Aviation Authority already has slack or that, while some parts of the Bill increase workload and responsibility, other parts reduce the workload and responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority?
The Police Act 1997 enables named public authorities to authorise property or wireless telegraphy interference where it is considered necessary to prevent or detect serious crime. Serious crime is defined in the Act in a number of ways, including by reference to offences for which a person
“could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more”.
In reality, various offences involving unmanned aircraft have not involved sentences of imprisonment for three years or more. Other offences, including offences under prisons legislation relating to conveying articles into prisons, have maximum sentences of less than three years. As a result, unmanned aircraft may be used to commit offences that would not constitute a serious crime as defined in the Police Act 1997, with its reference to
“reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more”.
Consequently, the statutory power of named public authorities to authorise property interference or interference with wireless telegraphy that would otherwise be unlawful is compromised.
To overcome this, the Bill provides, through an amendment to the relevant section of the Police Act 1997, for the authorisation of property interference and interference with wireless telegraphy when certain offences have been committed using an unmanned aircraft. Why have the Government proposed dealing with the matter in this way? Why have they, in effect, either said that unmanned aircraft offences are not actually serious offences as currently defined under the Police Act 1997 with the expectation of imprisonment for three years or more, or, alternatively, decided that for authorising property or wireless telegraphy interference in respect of offences using an unmanned aircraft, the definition of serious crime has been so lowered that it does not apparently include any reference to a reasonable expectation of a certain term of imprisonment for the offence which the interference being authorised is designed to prevent or deter?
Since offences involving the misuse of unmanned aircraft can have potentially very serious consequences, why have the Government decided that the threshold for authorising property or wireless telegraphy interference should be lowered in this way to include apparently minor offences involving the use of unmanned aircraft as well? Surely the Government’s efforts should be directed towards more appropriate terms of imprisonment being applied than appears to be the case now, at least for offences involving the use of unmanned aircraft which constitute a threat to air safety.
Likewise, the provisions of Schedule 8 on the power of a constable to stop and search people or vehicles would appear to cover suspicion of not just serious crime but non-serious crime. Could the Government say whether that is the case, and indicate in specific terms the lowest level of offence, or suspected offence, against which the stop-and-search powers in Schedule 8 could be exercised by a police officer? That information would be helpful prior to Committee.
My noble friend Lord Whitty raised a number of further measures that could be included in the Bill, such as a criminal offence of weaponising a drone; an offence of modifying a drone to disable built-in safety features; bringing drugs and alcohol rules in line with those for manned aviation; a minimum age for operating a drone; and a requirement to register each unmanned aircraft, as well as the operator. Similar and other points and questions have been raised by other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. I hope that the Government will be able to respond to them all, either now or before Committee.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s wide-ranging debate. The Government will respond to all the questions raised—unfortunately, probably not all today, but I will endeavour to get a communal letter out to all noble Lords who have participated so that, in advance of Committee, we have provided the correct information. The quality of contributions has been significant, and I will try to rattle through as many of the issues raised as I possibly can.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, my noble friend Lord Naseby and other contributors wondered whether the Government have been too complacent about drones and whether the timetable was sufficient to get the legislation to your Lordships’ House. There has of course been an election, and various other hiatuses in the progression of legislation through Parliament. However, that relates only to this Bill, and the Government have been absolutely on top of making sure that appropriate changes have been made to the Air Navigation Order 2016 and to previous air navigation orders. Legislatively, the Aviation and Maritime Security Act has been in place for many years, so regulations have been in place. The Bill before your Lordships’ House today gives the police powers to enforce regulations that have been in place for some time.
If that were not enough, we now have more regulation coming from the EU in the form of a delegated Act and an implementing Act. The delegated Act deals with product specifications for drones and the implementing Act deals with drone registration and operator elements, such as we in this country have already put in place. I therefore believe that the regulatory framework is there for us to use. Now, as a Government, we need to make sure that the police have ability to take that forward.
A number of noble Lords noted that the police powers were originally consulted on in a Home Office consultation that came out and was completed before the Gatwick incident. I reassure noble Lords that we have of course been in touch with members of the police force around Gatwick and, indeed, all over the country to make sure they are content with the powers in the Bill. We believe that they are. We have a close relationship with them, so they have been involved since Gatwick in making sure these powers are appropriate. Of course, we still meet with the police and other stakeholders to discuss these matters in general.
Stop and search was noted by some as being in the previous Home Office consultation. Not only have we been discussing this with the police; a cross-government working group also looked at stop and search powers. It is also worth noting that the cross-government working group agreed that the focus of the powers should not only be directed towards aviation and airports but be applicable to other areas such as prisons, which should lead to greater security. Of course, the world of drones and airspace change never stops, so we will continue to review the legislation to ensure it remains fit for purpose, particularly for drones. However, we cannot delay any longer and I believe that the Bill is a good way to take this forward.
There are important elements of the product standards that came in with the EU regulations on 1 July, for which there is a three-year transition period. They are electronic conspicuity, meaning that each drone will be discoverable and identifiable, which will help as unified traffic management progresses; and geo-awareness, which is already in legislation and therefore does not need to be added to the Bill.
A number of noble Lords have talked about the important issue of aviation and the environment. It is all very well talking about quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, but not if the latter is not the case. If we can sort out our airspace, we believe that fuel burn from aircraft will be reduced by 20%. That is already a 20% reduction in carbon. More broadly, aviation needs to play its part in the UK reaching its net-zero target. We are carefully considering the recent aviation advice from the Committee on Climate Change, and we will shortly publish for consultation our position on aviation and net zero. That builds on the work we did with the aviation strategy 2050: we consulted and gained an enormous amount of feedback on what we should be doing with our aviation sector. We will take that forward.
It is not just carbon that is important; it is also about air quality. The industry is looking at reducing airport-related emissions, given that airborne emissions account for a very small percentage point of air quality concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower mentioned noise, an incredibly important and much-underappreciated element of the airspace modernisation programme. Modern aircraft can take off and land using much steeper angles of departure and arrival, so we can reduce the overall amount of noise experienced by householders. Airports are also beginning to use performance-based navigation, which means there are ways to direct planes to at least give respite to certain communities during the day. The Government take noise very seriously. We set up ICCAN at the beginning of last year to look more carefully at what we must do about airport noise and its impact on communities.
Turning to the Bill itself, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the number of delegated powers in it. I agree with him: when I saw it, it fair took my breath away. However, I have been through each of those powers with a fine-toothed comb and I am convinced that this is the most effective way to provide these powers. I say to all noble Lords who are interested in the delegated powers that, following the Government’s report, the DPRRC did not have any issues to raise with the House after reviewing those powers. I would be very happy to set up a specific briefing: the Bill puts new schedules into other Acts—for example, the Transport Act 2000—so the entire framework is a little complicated. I am convinced that even the Henry VIII powers have a rightful place in the Bill, but I am very happy to help wherever I can.
With reference to the devolved Administrations, the section of the Bill relating to activities around prisons is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland. My department has written to both nations and the officials are currently liaising with their counterparts regarding the next stage of the process. We will continue to work very closely with them.
Turning to airspace change, mentioned at length by my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Naseby, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, this is a complicated area. I will commit here and now that I am very happy to organise a briefing on airspace in general, to provide the context required to properly understand the powers that are being asked of your Lordships’ House throughout the passage of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether airspace change was nationally controlled. It is nationally mandated and nationally organised. The point about airspace change is that there are many layers, a little like an onion. Various people will be involved at various stages, but it is critical that given the change to the structure of CAP1616—the CAA’s process for airspace change—the amount of consultation and the number of stakeholders that are consulted within airspace change proposals has increased. I reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, that the military is at the heart of that. We have commercial aircraft, civil aircraft, military aircraft and general aviation, and local communities also have a significant part to play in responding. When I was—for at least five minutes last year—Aviation Minister, I chaired the Airspace Strategy Board. That was always a pleasure, because it brings together at a ministerial level civil aviation, general aviation, the military, the airports and the airlines. It is a good forum for discussing airspace change and how to make it as effective as possible. I reassure noble Lords that there is an over- arching control at the top in terms of getting people’s feedback in.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. In preparation for this debate, which I have not spoken in, I asked the CAA about the control of airspace. I concur with the Minister that it is complicated. However, the appeal process for an aerodrome—as the Bill puts it—that wants to appeal against the CAA’s decision, goes to the Competition and Markets Authority. I am interested to know how the Government alighted upon the CMA as the appropriate body for appeals.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I shall have to write to her because it involves a level of detail into which I cannot go today.
I will skip over organisations such as ACOG, which has been set up by the CAA and will co-ordinate the airspace changes master plan. Again, I propose that my team produces a short two-page briefing and then we can have a verbal briefing thereafter.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower referred to the airspace changes and the process that the CAA uses. I have mentioned CAP1616, which was updated by the CAA in 2018 and is not due for change just yet. However, the point is that no airspace changes proposals have completed CAP1616 yet because it takes two to three years and involves seven stages and multiple consultations. It is very thorough.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, mentioned specifically that the MoD needs access to airspace to train pilots. Of course it does, to maintain the competency of the UK’s defence needs. The MoD acts as an airspace change sponsor and therefore is responsible for the airspace around its own bases.
My noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Kirkhope both mentioned general aviation and the reclassification of airspace. The Secretary of State has directed the CAA to develop and publish a national policy for the classification of UK airspace and to keep classification under regular review. The CAA has launched a consultation to identify volumes of controlled airspace in which the classification could be amended to better reflect the needs of all airspace users. This consultation closes on 3 March and the CAA will then shortlist volumes of airspace for potential amendments. Overall, the CAA has a responsibility to minimise the amount of controlled airspace.
The cost of airspace change is also important. It can vary from a few hundred thousand pounds to up to £5 million for some of the largest airports. The Government recognise that there may be occasions when a small airport requires financial assistance to carry out some aspects of airspace change, particularly if this results in airspace change in other airports and involves reaching an agreement about how it will all fit together.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned artificial intelligence. This is not currently used in air traffic control or to fly an aircraft but it is recognised that there may be potential in artificial intelligence, particularly around aircraft safety and to reduce air traffic delays, but at the moment it is not a feature of the system.
On the third part of the Bill—“Unmanned Aircraft” —and the clause on general police powers, noble Lords will recognise that drones can be used positively. This is important and the Government are doing all they can to support the drone industry. My noble friend Lord Naseby referred to the weight limit within the drone sector and its applicability in relation to the Bill. Schedule 8—“General police powers and prison powers relating to unmanned aircraft”—does not have an upper weight limit and therefore goes above the 20 kilogram limit that usually applies to certain things, and it gives powers to a constable to ground an aircraft to stop and search, and so on. Schedule 9 gives the police powers relating specifically to the requirements in ANO 2016 and is applicable to unmanned aircraft up to 20 kilograms. The proposals relating to registration, competence and so on do not apply to unmanned aircraft of less than 250 grams.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, valiantly almost completed his speech. At the start of it he mentioned the EU Select Committee report in 2015. It is an important report and many of its recommendations have been implemented or are currently in the process of being implemented. The UK launched its registration and competency testing scheme for drones in November last year. To many people’s surprise, the number of people who have registered with the system is higher than forecast, and I am delighted that it is doing well. More than 80,000 people have registered with the system to date and more people sign up every day.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned that he will probably table amendments to tighten and extend the regulation of drones. The purpose of the Bill is to improve public safety through the police enforcement powers. That is the focus of the Bill; therefore, it is probably not the correct vehicle for further unmanned aircraft regulation, but the EU regulations are already in law and they will be developing our legislation. We will continue to consider whether the regulations in the Air Navigation Order are fit for purpose.
My noble friend Lord Naseby mentioned fixed penalty notices. I would be very happy to discuss this in more detail outside the Chamber. Our intention is that fixed penalty notices will be given only in relation to the most minor offences where certain conditions listed in the Bill are met. These include that no other aircraft was endangered and that no other person was harmed, harassed, alarmed or distressed. The first regulation that we put down will specify exactly what will be subject to a fixed penalty notice. It will be an affirmative regulation and will therefore be debated in your Lordships’ House.
A question was asked about whether stop-and-search demographics will be available for those subject to a stop and search under these powers. Yes, they will be published by the Home Office in the usual way.
Police training and guidance are critical. Guidance is being drafted at the moment with the assistance of the police. It will be given to the College of Policing as well as to individual police forces. Noble Lords will be aware that the UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy was published in October 2019. A specific unit is being set up—the new national police counter-drones unit—which will be critical in advising police forces how and when to utilise the powers. These are the specialists mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
I am well aware that I am running out of time. I have committed to write, and I will. I want to finish on counter-UAV technology because it is important and something that some noble Lords might imagine would be in the Bill. The issue is that counter-UAV technology is under development. There are two types. The first is to detect, track and identify. It tries to find the drone so that the police know where it is. At the moment, systems are being tested by the CPNI and a list of approved systems is being published, but these systems are a work in progress.
Lord Campbell-Savours
On confiscation, will the Minister discuss it with her officials so that we are informed prior to Committee?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I was going to get to that, but if he does not mind I will ensure that there is a full discussion of the point he raised when I write, and it will be soon.
The second is effector technology: how do you take the drones out of the sky? That is where the destruction of property and the wireless telegraphy powers in the Bill are critical. When we have effector technology that works we will need these powers to enable the drones to be taken out of the sky to prevent them doing harm.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken the time to speak in today’s debate. I am looking forward to Committee and to being able to share more information with noble Lords shortly.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Monday 10th February 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 10-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (10 Feb 2020)
Baroness Randerson
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to clarify who may be covered by “another person with functions relating to air navigation” with regard to who is able to prepare and submit airspace change proposals.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the support on these Benches for the principles of this Bill should come as no surprise to anyone in this House or the aviation industry. Several previous attempts have been made by the Government to introduce a Bill along these lines, but they have been interrupted by general elections.
You would have thought that by the time we reached this stage, following several government consultations, the Bill would be fool-proof and that the Government would have thought through everything very clearly. That is not the case. Despite the length of time it has taken to get here, and despite all the organisations involved in aviation having been consulted and agreeing that there is a need for airspace modernisation and also agreeing about the need for the Government to have powers of direction over the process, the Government have managed to upset almost everybody involved.
Amendment 1 is a probing amendment to try to tease out exactly who the Government have in mind in their reference in Clause 2(2)(c) to
“another person with functions relating to air navigation.”
Clause 2(2) already refers to airport operators and to “air navigation service providers”, which is a pretty broad term. This is a very sweeping power for the Government to give themselves. Subsequent to the passing of the Bill, they will be able to designate some other organisation—not yet thought of, one assumes—to prepare and submit airspace change proposals. The Bill gives the Government pretty draconian powers. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee memo notes that there are eight uses of Henry VIII powers.
The Government have consulted widely, but there is concern, especially from the Airport Operators Association, that rather late in the day they have, for instance, introduced a new element into airspace modernisation proposals. It agrees, and I agree very strongly, that there is a need for co-operation between airports on this. Modernising airspace is a very difficult process. It is needed for environmental reasons, but at the end of it you have some local residents who are extremely happy because planes no longer fly over them, but other local residents are extremely unhappy because the planes fly over them an awful lot more. It is also a very costly process for the airports concerned, and all airports are not the size of, or have the financial prowess of, Gatwick, Heathrow and so on. Some very small airports will be involved in this process. They are now very concerned that a new element relating to the reallocation of underused airspace has now been introduced. Will the Minister say what that phrase means and why has that element been introduced?
The use of airspace is not constant, and it takes years to undertake airspace modernisation. At the moment, a piece of airspace might be underused because schedules at a particular airport are light, but after some marketing, a change in the market and consumer demand and a couple of years, that airspace will no longer be underused. I am keen to know from the Government who they have in mind in the phrase
“another person with functions relating to air navigation.”
Which body might be set up or designated in the future as part of this process? Also, how will the Government take into account the problems that I have raised in relation to cost and the dynamic nature, if I can put it that way, of airspace use? Smaller airports are particularly concerned that they might be ordered to release some airspace now, then find in a year or two’s time that they need it for their growth and development. Airspace is as vital to future growth as having a runway.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seeks to clarify the phrase in Clause 2(2)(c)
“another person with functions relating to air navigation.”
I shall start by addressing that phrase and then move on to the other parts of airspace modernisation and how the powers to which it refers might be used.
To give a little background, Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct any person involved in airspace change, following consultation. Consultation will come up a number of times today; this is a very consultative process, as indeed it must be to work. After consultation with that person, the Secretary of State can direct them to do three things: first, to prepare or submit an airspace change proposal, an ACP, to the Civil Aviation Authority, the CAA; secondly, to take steps to obtain approval to an ACP that has already been submitted; and, thirdly, to review the operation of an ACP after it has been approved. Those are the three things that the Secretary of State can direct.
In Part 1 of the Bill, any
“person involved in airspace change”
is defined as, again, three things. First, they could be an airport operator, and one might expect that in most cases the airport operator would indeed be involved in putting forward the ACP or making sure that it progresses; secondly, they could perfectly well be an air navigation service provider; and then there is that third term to which this amendment relates—it is a probing amendment to understand what sort of person
“another person with functions relating to air navigation”
could be. For example, they could be part of an existing body such as an industry association or an airspace change consultancy brought in after the consultation, perhaps, to look at how the process of the ACP is working. Or they could be from a new body set up to deal with a specific ACP or a group of ACPs. One might imagine a circumstance in which a group of airports set up a new ACP in order to help another airport to deal with its airspace change.
The reason behind the third part of Clause 2(2) is to provide flexibility, because it may be—and one can imagine circumstances in which it would be—that the person involved who was the subject of the direction was not an airport operator or an air navigation service provider. In all this, though—and again I hope that noble Lords will recognise this today—these powers are to be used only as a last resort. We hope that the process will be collaborative and involve various elements working together in order to achieve the positive change that we need. I hope I have explained the reasons why this flexibility is needed. It is that that third person may not be one of the other two but may nevertheless be quite capable of taking forward an airspace change.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am very interested in what the Minister said about who might be involved in seeking changes. Yes, it could be done to help a small airport to get better access to its flights or controls, but it could be done to keep someone away. In other words, it could be done to prevent competition. My worry would be how much it would cost for a small airport to oppose or indeed promote these things if those circumstances arose.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I think we will get into the detail of how airspace change proposals work in the next group of amendments. It is the case that there is a master plan that is overarching—I think hand gestures are needed to describe this—and covers the whole of the south of the country. Within that, there are then 17 airports that may need to make airspace change proposals to a greater or lesser extent in order to fit the master plan. When an airport, be it small or large, puts forward its airspace change proposals, those are considered by the CAA according to the criteria as set out in Section 66 of the Transport Act 2000.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord has just corrected me that it is Section 70, and he is absolutely right.
Within all this, it is the CAA that will ensure that airspace change proposals are appropriate. It is not the case that one airport will be capable of coming along to try to duff up another, because both airspace change proposals will be considered as they move through the system. The CAA will look at them, and equity between the two will be one of the important considerations that it will look at.
I turn back to the reasons why this change is possibly not needed. Airspace modernisation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned in her opening remarks, is a complex and multifaceted programme. There is the master plan, which will sit over the entire new airspace design, but that makes up just two of the initiatives out of the 15 that comprise the airspace modernisation strategy that has been set out by the CAA. For example, one of the initiatives, as is rightly also set out in the Transport Act, is that the use of airspace has to be equitable for all users. The Government are looking to ensure that airspace is not controlled—I do not want to say “unnecessarily” because I do not think it would be fair, but there might be controlled airspace that could become uncontrolled and therefore allow a greater number of users to use it. I am thinking particularly about the general aviation field, and I certainly know that gliders have sometimes had difficulties because for them uncontrolled airspace is much easier to use.
However, any change in airspace will always go through a process, and that process will have safety as its absolute priority. I think noble Lords will be aware that the number one thing that we have to do when we look at airspace is ensure that planes are safe to fly. It will also take into account the airport’s particular growth plans, so an airport could not turn around and say “No, I’m really sorry—I need that back”. These are fairly long-term decisions and, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, the process takes a significant time. However, it is also consultative so there will be a consultation process not only with the general aviation sector but with the airport itself; it will be able to give its reasons why it would like to maintain that airspace as controlled, if indeed that is what it wants to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also mentioned the costs of airspace change proposals. I believe that they can be quite costly, and we will come on to them in a later group so I probably will not address them now. However, I hope that on the basis of my explanation she will agree that Clause 2(2)(c) should remain part of the Bill and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm that the words of paragraph (c),
“another person with functions relating to air navigation”,
also include the Ministry of Defence?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend is right. It may well include the Ministry of Defence, although I would expect that department to fall under the airports section because if it was putting forward airspace changes, as I believe it will be doing for RAF Northolt, it will be the sponsor in that regard.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for that response, and I will read her words carefully before Report. I am of course aware that this kind of phrase is a delightful catch-all, which Governments like to put in legislation in case some organisation crops up at a later stage that they have not thought of now. However, there is an important argument to be made here about ensuring that we have clarity at this point on exactly what the structure is. That is partly because it is always a welcome situation but also because there is quite a lot of interlink between the Secretary of State, the Civil Aviation Authority, the airport operators and the aviation providers. It is important that people have their tree of command and its requirements pretty clear in their minds but, having said that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Randerson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would narrow the powers given to the Secretary of State to ensure they are being used for changes that assist in the delivery of the master plan for airspace modernisation, as directed by the co-sponsors of airspace modernisation, the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Baroness Randerson
This group of amendments, of which we have put forward three, relates once again to clarifying exactly what the Government seek to do. Amendment 2 relates to narrowing the powers of the Secretary of State to make sure that they are used only for
“the delivery of the master plan for airspace modernisation”
that the Minister referred to just now.
Amendment 4 relates to requiring the master plan to be the subject of consultation, as the Minister suggested earlier would be the case. Importantly, it would ensure that we had an appropriate appeals procedure because, as I said earlier, this is a very complex process. The Committee may imagine that there is airspace to be carved up between two neighbouring airports, and perhaps it cannot be carved up so that both airports are equally happy with the impact of what happens. It is important that everyone involved has the right to transparent acknowledgement of the situation and clear reasoning for why decisions are made.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 3 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with Amendment 2 because narrowing the Secretary of State’s powers would not be desirable. I know that the powers under discussion relate directly to the modernisation programme, but they should be maintained permanently regarding the control of airspace. The CAA is not a good place for these matters to dwell, particularly as the Secretary of State is of course accountable to Parliament—so there is a way in which the Secretary of State can be challenged, which is rather more democratic and relevant than a narrowing of the powers. We do not want a shift in the balance of power from the Secretary of State to the CAA. That point goes for Amendments 2, 3, 8 and 9.
Amendment 4 refers to a consultation process and appeals. As we know, there was a very effective Aviation 2050 Green Paper last year, which was a mammoth consultation. The consultation here proposed might duplicate the effort that has just gone in and could be a waste of resources. Aviation interests would be consulted in any event, but I am not sure that an initial consultation, as envisaged here, would be helpful.
Some airfields are obviously commercially able to find the resources to be involved, but some are not. It is, therefore, important that smaller airfields are looked after. Amendment 6, which would ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding, is important and should be supported. Amendment 7 would allow a system of compensation to be set up, to cover the cost of airports being compelled to make changes. That seems reasonable, as airports are commercial entities.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I draw attention to the penultimate line on the front page of today’s list, which states that the target for the day is to complete Amendment 23. That means that we are not going to do drones today. No Member has moved from their seat; never mind.
The essence of this group of amendments, with which I broadly agree, is to prevent mission creep. Having sat on the Front Bench opposite, I recall that whenever you create a right for the Government to do something or other, civil servants will creep up to you and say: “Make sure it is not restricted, because you might need it.” I fear that, far too often, they do.
The Minister wrote to me and several other noble Lords. On the second page of her letter, under the heading “Proportionality”, her second sentence states:
“It is the government’s intention that, at least initially, the powers to direct in clauses 2 and 3 would only be used by the Secretary of State in relation to ACPs that have been identified within the airspace change masterplan, currently being developed by NERL through the Airspace Change Organising Group (ACOG) with a view to incorporation of the masterplan into the CAA’s airspace strategy”.
I read the whole sentence for the avoidance of doubt. The words that sprung out at me are, “at least initially”. Further on in the letter, the Minister seeks to soften those words with a series of intentions. However, intentions are not law: they are the words of the Minister. If she repeats those words into Hansard they become a little more useful. Nevertheless, there is a serious issue with that part of the Bill ending up in mission creep. There are so many things for which the CAA or the Government might wish to use these powers.
I share the view that the task in front of those who are trying to deliver the programme is such that consultation—ideally on the face of the Bill, as put forward by Amendment 4—would be useful. It would certainly be useful to hear the extent to which the Minister can assure the House about consultation. On the appeals procedure, I refer again to the noble Baroness’s extremely useful letter, in which she says:
“There is no formal appeals process against an ACAA decision relating to individual ACPs. CAP1616 is a fully transparent process in which consultation and engagement exercises are run throughout.”
With the greatest respect, a consultation and engagement exercise is not an appeal. Because of the extent to which this process is entirely within the CAA’s ambit, one can see a situation where, without some hook in primary legislation, small fish in this sea could find themselves swamped. A formal appeals procedure somewhere in the Bill might usefully add to it. I hope that the Minister will be able to react to those ideas.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I first pick up the question that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, started with, which is whether we shall end at the target of Amendment 23. My understanding is that we shall, because that has been agreed through the usual channels. Amendment 24 is in my name, so it is important that I can be confident that we will stop, if we get that far, at Amendment 23. I take the nodding to mean that that is the case and I appreciate it.
While I am on my feet, may I ask a more general question about all these amendments? There has been a great deal of talk about the interests of the civilian side of the aviation industry and how it interacts with the Department for Transport and the CAA, but I am not clear how the Ministry of Defence’s position will be properly safeguarded. The CAA has RAF representation, but I do not feel that that is at a high enough level and I would like to be reassured that the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence are in continuous contact, at the right level, on these points. The Ministry of Defence, and the Royal Air Force in particular, needs aviation space not only for getting in and out of airfields; they also have training needs and other areas that have to be safeguarded if the Royal Air Force is to continue to be effective in its training.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for introducing this group. I also thank my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I note that he strayed into the area of costs, which is the subject of a later group, but I look forward to his later contribution. As many noble Lords have pointed out, it is important that the Secretary of State is given the powers required to deliver airspace modernisation, but also that these powers are proportionate and do not go further than needed.
Clauses 2 and 3 of Part 1 give the Secretary of State the power to direct a person involved in airspace change to progress an airspace change proposal as required, or direct a person to co-operate with somebody else who is progressing an airspace change proposal. This means that airspace change will not be held up. I think that is an established fact and all noble Lords can agree with it. Additionally, it ensures the delivery of the full range of airspace modernisation outcomes. Again, I have already mentioned that there are many important initiatives within airspace modernisation. These may be related to safety, capacity, noise, air quality, fuel efficiency, improving access to airspace for all users, military access or the introduction of new technology.
On improving access to airspace for all users, the issue of uncontrolled and controlled airspace has been rumbling along for a little while. It dates back to 2018, so airports have been aware that there was going to be a further look at airspace classification for quite some time. Initiative 10 of the airspace modernisation strategy was set out by the then Secretary of State and enhanced in October 2019, when the air navigation directives directed the CAA to progress the identification of airspace volumes. This is all about the balance between commercial aviation and general aviation. I do not believe that a single Member of your Lordships’ House believes that one necessarily has to have priority over the other. It is a question of proportionality and balance.
I want to mention military airspace at this point. We speak to the military all the time. When I was Aviation Minister, I used to chair the Airspace Strategy Board, the highest level of ministerial oversight over airspace modernisation, and somebody from the MoD was on the board. I forget what rank he was, but he made me feel quite small so he was quite senior, and he would contribute to our discussions. In my time on this Bill and in my previous life as Aviation Minister, I was not aware that people from the military had concerns about this process or the processes we oversee. We work well with them, ensuring that they have the access they need and know the processes for RAF Northolt to have the right routes to upper airspace, for example.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting again. Is the Minister saying that the Secretary of State for Transport now has powers to direct the Ministry of Defence in these matters?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend asks a very interesting question. I will check with my lawyers and officials, but I believe that if a Ministry of Defence airfield was holding up airspace modernisation throughout the country by not getting its act together and progressing an airspace-change proposal, the Secretary of State would be able to direct the Ministry of Defence. What would be the alternative—the Ministry of Defence dragging its heels and not participating? Although one cannot imagine a time when the Ministry of Defence would do that, this is, as I will say many times today, a collaborative process. I have never heard of any examples where we have not collaborated well with the Ministry of Defence and all government departments.
Returning to these powers, they would be used by the Secretary of State only if it assisted delivery of the CAA’s strategy and plan. However, airspace modernisation is not just about the master plan. That is why the Government cannot accept the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe. Terminal airspace redesign is the master plan. At the moment we are considering the south, but we will move on to the north; these are only two of the initiatives to be delivered through the airspace modernisation strategy. As I have said, there are many others, including the airspace classification review and so on. The powers to direct relate only to airspace change proposals. They will stand as a last resort if airspace modernisation cannot be continued because an ACP sponsor is dragging its feet.
This goes back to the question of who airspace belongs to. It does not really belong to anybody. It is right that we encourage people to act collaboratively, so that we can all get the most out of our airspace. Coming down the track are the development of a solution for electronic conspicuity, the implementation of more precise and flexible satellite navigation-based arrival and departure routes—which, as noble Lords will know, will have positive implications for noise in some areas—and various international obligations which we have to comply with relating to air traffic management. Here again, these directions may be helpful, but as a last resort.
I cannot accept the amendments that would state that we were looking particularly at the master plan rather than at airspace modernisation as a whole. It is a much broader strategy, and certainly covers a wide range of things, although I would probably say that the master plan and the airspace modernisation from that master plan is one of the key elements of it.
It is worth mentioning that the two documents named in Amendment 2 and Amendment 8—CAP 1711 and CAP 1711b—cover only the period to the end of 2024, the first phase of airspace modernisation. The entire modernisation is due to run until 2040, so it is likely that these documents will be updated and ultimately replaced. Therefore, it is possible that having these specific documents in an amendment would not help the development or deliverability of airspace modernisation.
While I am on my feet, I will clarify something on the master plan. It is being developed by ACOG, which was set up to do so. It will need to be accepted by the CAA into the airspace modernisation strategy and plan. Of course, the CAA will do so only if it is consistent with the directions that it has been given and if it has been appropriately consulted on. The CAA is quite hot on this, actually. It rejected at least one airspace change proposal submitted in 2018, I think, because not enough consultation had gone on with communities. The CAA is clear that its role is very much as an honest broker and to make sure that people have been able to have their say.
When the master plan is complete, and with providing the benefits in mind, ACOG will look at the potential conflicts, trade-offs, interdependencies and the preferred implementation plan, but it will not look at individual airspace design solutions. Clearly, in the lower airspace, that is up to the airports to figure out. It is an extraordinarily iterative process, necessarily so, and enormous engagement is already happening as the master plan goes through its stages.
I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords, particularly on the inclusion of “master plan” rather than mentioning the airspace modernisation strategy and plan. Also, it is not really appropriate to mention particular documents if we are to give the Bill the longevity that it needs. As I explained, the master plan will already have had regulatory acceptance into the strategy by the CAA, which will assess whether stakeholders have been spoken to. That will include airports, air navigation service providers, and many more people involved in the process.
We believe that there are sufficient avenues of challenge from airport operators and ANSPs. Resolution of conflicts in airspace change proposals already happens, of course, usually through a collaborative process mediated by the CAA. If any airspace change sponsor is still not happy, they can submit an application for judicial review.
I hope that I have been able to convince noble Lords that the powers are appropriate and will enable the Government to take forward airspace modernisation over a matter of decades rather than just in the short term. I also assure them that concerns are heard at every step of the way and are usually resolved collaboratively. That is a process between Her Majesty’s Government, the CAA, the airports and all their stakeholders.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Will the Minister be kind enough to formally affirm that we will not take Amendment 24 today?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am absolutely delighted to stand at the Dispatch Box and reassure all noble Lords that I really am not on top of my speaking notes for Amendment 24, so we will not take it today.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the Minister for that reply. She said something very interesting early in that response, which was that she had to balance the interests of commercial and general aviation, and that she does not feel that one should have priority over the other. First, “general aviation” is a very broad term. A lot of planes with transponders that would be classed as general aviation are able to fly perfectly safely in regulated airspace. However, there are also a lot of leisure pilots with small private planes who have a great deal of fun but do not have sophisticated equipment for flying in that airspace.
With all due respect to the Minister, commercial aviation is worth many billions of pounds to this country. It carries many billions of pounds’ worth of freight and is of huge importance to our business and tourism industries. It is essential that the safety and efficiency of commercial aviation are maintained as a result of this legislation. Anything which complicates that process and makes it more difficult would strike at the importance of our aviation industry at this moment.
I will read the Minister’s words very carefully and invite her to look again at the amendments and what we have said on them to reassure people—airlines, airports and others involved with a key interest in commercial aviation—that their interests remain at the heart of this.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness does not want to give the impression that there is a high preponderance among those engaged in general aviation—whether for business or, as she put it, leisure—who are not using the latest technology and training in the work they do. I speak as a private pilot and others here are similarly qualified. “General aviation” is a very wide term, but in our discussion on regulated airspace the noble Baroness should be quite clear that a considerable number of people involved at the leisure end are very well-equipped, technologically and personally.
Baroness Randerson
One of the key reasons behind my intervening on this point was to make it absolutely clear that “general aviation” is a very broad term. There are many people involved in it with extremely high-tech equipment, but it is not realistic to expect all smaller leisure pilots to have the latest equipment. I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the Chamber for the Question earlier today, but, if he has read the reports that came from the sad experience of that accident, he will be aware that there are many key issues associated with the regulation of smaller planes and the way in which some people—I emphasise this—use them.
There are important aspects to this, and in responding to that Question the Minister made it clear that the department was looking at it. It is important that we bear that aspect in mind in this debate, because the vast majority of the general public were, for example, completely unaware of the kind of grey charter flights referred to in that Question. It is an issue not just of equipment but of where the planes have flown. That makes it still safe to fly them, even though they have not perhaps got the latest or highest-spec equipment. That is why this discussion is ongoing and why it is important that these amendments are being tabled. I will read the record carefully and see what the Minister has said. If she wishes to write to clarify some of the things said in this debate, I would welcome that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“( ) If a direction given to a person under subsection (1)—(a) is predominantly or wholly to enable the airspace change proposal of a third party to be completed as part of the master plan for airspace modernisation,(b) is not given to the third party itself, and(c) would lead to an excessively high financial burden for the person under subsection (1),the Secretary of State must ensure that person receives appropriate compensation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding if they are to be subject to directions that could have severe financial implications.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 10 in this group, which in my name. Both amendments would ensure that smaller airports have appropriate funding if they are subject to directions that could have severe financial implications for them. We have referred to the cost of airspace modernisation a number of times this afternoon, and I have already said that not all airports are Gatwick or Heathrow; they are not all even Bristol, for example. Some of the smaller airports that might be subject to expensive requirements on their airspace change could find this very difficult indeed to accommodate financially.
One estimate is that the cost of airspace modernisation could reflect 15% of the annual turnover of a small airport, which would be impossible for them to deal with financially. It is one thing to deal with it financially if it will be to your commercial benefit, and another thing if it will be to the benefit of your neighbouring airport. Noble Lords can see why some airports are rather concerned about this, because it could have serious financial implications. On the order of magnitude of the money involved, I gather that it could cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds for each airport, and if a charge is incurred against their will and against their commercial interests, that will be difficult for them.
In our amendments we have tried to take what I regard as a reasonable line, to set a pretty strong test. We suggest that compensation would apply only if it imposed
“an excessively high financial burden”.
They might have to shrug and accept a small financial burden, but if it becomes extremely high, compensation should be considered. Our concept was that funding would come from NATS, but there are other proposals related to that.
These two amendments are designed to protect small airports. They aim to ensure that, in parts of the country where small airports are of huge importance, both to the economy and to people who wish to travel in those parts, those small airports survive. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
My Lords, I apologise for misreading my Order Paper and trying to head into areas of amendments before I should be allowed to: I thank my noble friend for correcting me. However, on this amendment, there is a strong case for some compensation to be allowed for smaller airports—in particular, those that are compelled to make changes. The amendment is unclear on whether this covers just the cost of making the change, however that is defined, or the negative commercial impact as a result. That is a totally different area but one that I know is of great concern to smaller airports.
Amendment 10 awards compensation for an excessively high financial burden, as the noble Baroness just said. That is also extremely difficult to assess. I think one would have to be more specific than a “high financial burden”, because there is a lot of argument there. The principle, however, seems right, because whatever we decide to do or is decided, smaller businesses should not be forced to foot large bills for airspace changes forced on them by the Government and may be forced on them through government as a result of pressures from those who can better afford the costs associated with such changes.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness are well illustrated by Newquay Airport in Cornwall, where I live. I use the airport occasionally. It is subject to a public service obligation which the county council has negotiated to ensure four return flights a day between Newquay and a London airport. It has been very successful. There has been recent discussion, as noble Lords will know, to change the London location from Heathrow back to Gatwick, for reasons we do not need to go into today. The point is that Newquay has a few flights going to other places in the UK, on the continent and in Ireland. It is also the base for Richard Branson’s latest idea of getting to the moon—taking passengers there, or something—which may be the subject of a government grant. It is odd, but if it was required to make changes to its airspace because of some other reason, the airport would be in severe financial difficulties. That is why it has been given a PSO: because it is an important part of improving the transport between Cornwall and London.
One can challenge or disagree with some of the text of the amendment, but the principle is there. If, when she comes to respond, the Minister does not like the wording, perhaps she can go away, have some discussions about it and come back with more acceptable wording. We should hold on to the principle of a small airport not being put to severe financial difficulty because of something over which it has no control.
Lord Craig of Radley
I have no particular difficulty with the idea of compensating somebody who is being adversely affected by a decision for larger national reasons, but going back to the concern about the Ministry of Defence interests, let us suppose that a Ministry of Defence interest is such that it needs to be accepted. Looking ahead, the Armed Forces will have drones as well as manned airframes. Their needs may be quite unusual compared with the normal. In those circumstances, a decision would have to be taken either in the interests of the Ministry of Defence or the commercial civilian operator concerned. I am not clear how such a decision would be arrived at. Perhaps, once again, the Minister will be able to make it clearer to us all where the Ministry of Defence fits into this type of decision.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
During the discussion that the Minister held in Committee Room G, I took the opportunity to talk to the legal advisers to the department, who assured me that consideration was being given to the financial detriment that may arise. How you determine that is quite difficult because if somebody has a detriment, presumably somebody has a gain. It will be a question of offsetting one against the other. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that this applies also to remote areas of Scotland with access to the very busiest airports, such as Edinburgh—which is much prized by the small places that have one or two flights a week but is considered almost a nuisance by the large airports.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, our four amendments in this group say more or less the same thing: the master plan may involve a need for compensation.
The Bill asks the philosophical question of who owns the airspace. There is almost a reasonable argument for you owning the airspace above what you own; that does not work so we must have some other ownership of the airspace. Clearly, the only such ownership that makes sense is that it is a national asset. It must therefore be managed for the general good.
That is a complex exercise because you must try to achieve two things: efficiency and equity. There is a problem with efficiency. Take a situation where individual entities have been working largely on their own and making optimal use of, in this case, airspace: if you recognise that it is becoming a scarce resource and therefore seek to manage it for maximum efficiency, there will be winners and losers. The problem is that, if that is so, the losers will look on it as inequitable. There are probably only three solutions to that lack of equity. One is to say, “Tough. Life is like that.” The second is the situation we have now: a suboptimal situation where you are not using the airspace to its maximum efficiency. The third is that you recognise the special position of the losers and pay compensation.
This is a difficult philosophical point. However, the problem is that United Kingdom airspace is no longer a philosophical point but a practical one. Therefore, as I said, we have tabled amendments that are similar to the Liberal Democrat ones to tease out the Government’s thinking on this dilemma and how we may take the debate forward.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank noble Lords for tabling amendments and speaking so thoughtfully on such an important subject.
I assure noble Lords that we have considered, and will continue to consider, the potential impact of the Secretary of State directing a smaller airport to progress an ACP—airspace change proposal—when it may not have sufficient funds. At this stage, I want to assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, that to support Ministry of Defence force development, the MoD will continue to require flexible and timely access to UK airspace. Also, the master plan will consider and include detail of the military’s future airspace requirements.
In general terms, it is a long-standing policy that air passengers should fund the cost of their travel, including the cost of changes to airspace structure, rather than this being subsidised by the taxpayer. However, the Government recognise that there may be occasions when a small airport requires financial assistance to carry out some aspects of an airspace change proposal. We expect the CAA’s oversight team to work with the airport operator or other person involved in airspace change before recommending that the Secretary of State uses the powers of direction relating to airspace change proposals.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Does the Minister recognise that airline passengers pay quite considerable amounts of tax? It is not unreasonable for them to look to the state to provide operational efficiency in regard to that tax.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s point. This argument is not all about efficiency. I will finish my points.
At this early stage, if the airport operator expressed concerns that it did not have sufficient funding to proceed with a particular ACP, we would expect the oversight team to work with the operator to suggest alternative solutions. We expect that this could include an alternative sponsor paying for the changes. The CAA oversight team could help identify and seek support from another ACP sponsor—most likely to its benefit—whose own ACP plans depend on the change in question. An example of this is Heathrow Airport, which currently provides assistance to various smaller airports to bring forward their ACPs in order to ensure that its own ACP can be developed, due to the interdependence of their airspace.
As for alternative funding support, the CAA has created from its determined costs an airspace modernisation support fund of £10 million for the 2020-25 regulatory period. The airspace modernisation support fund, ASF, is intended to be utilised to address projects that are important to the success of the airspace modernisation strategy where there are no other appropriate mechanisms for the recovery of these costs. It should support AMS deployment, including activity critical to the implementation of the airspace master plan that ACOG has been commissioned to deliver under the AMS. There is therefore the potential to apply for funding support, which would need to be considered alongside other funding bids.
As a last resort the Government could consider, on a case-by-case basis only, whether grant funding under Section 34(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act could be provided to an airport directed to bring forward an ACP that resulted in adverse financial impacts. This funding would be subject to Treasury approval and offered only if it proved absolutely necessary. We consider that offering government funding on a wider basis would go against the “user pays” principle.
I assure noble Lords that, due to the steps I have outlined, we do not expect a situation to arise in which an airport operator would be put in financial difficulty by being directed to progress an ACP where there is no positive business case for one. In extremis, if this were to happen, under Section 34(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 the Government would be able to provide compensation to an airport for the losses it has incurred, but this would still be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Lord Berkeley
I was interested when the Minister gave the example of Heathrow Airport being prepared to provide the funding necessary for a small airport to propose changes. Heathrow Airport does it not exactly on a charitable basis but for its own benefit. It is a commercial outfit. It tried to do this in the last year with the flight I spoke about earlier from Newquay to Heathrow. The county council said: “We don’t want that. We’d rather stay at Heathrow than be transferred to Gatwick.”
The Minister is looking a bit bemused. My point is that Heathrow offering somebody else the funding to help make these changes is not exactly independent. It will be in its commercial interests, so it should probably be ignored.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his intervention. I think he was talking about aircraft slots in that instance, which is not the subject of this debate. Also, Newquay is not subject to the ACP in the same way as other airports; it is outside the master plan.
I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords that this amendment is unnecessary. We do not anticipate that a situation of loss will arise. Based on these points, I therefore hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, the responses from the noble Baroness and noble Lords who have taken part emphasise that this is a very tricky issue. I certainly would not disagree that aviation and its passengers have to pay their way, and we would not normally expect aviation to be subsidised by government—although of course, the public service obligation does allow for that.
A key point from the Government’s perspective was raised by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who talked about detriment versus benefit. We have been looking at big airports versus little ones. But take two airports —for example, Luton and Stansted—which are close to each other and reasonably similar in size. If an arrangement has to be made on their airspace modernisation that does not please both of them equally, how will that problem be solved financially? I am slightly surprised that the Government have got this far on this issue without having a clear answer to that. Fortunately, this debate has given us the opportunity to think about it in some detail.
I welcome further developments from the Government and am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“( ) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on whether the CAA is sufficiently resourced to carry out its functions under this section within six months of its coming into force.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on whether the CAA is sufficiently resourced to carry out the new functions in this Bill.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, it will emerge as the afternoon goes on that I am somewhat unbelieving that this process will work. One reason I fear it may not work is the sheer lack of resources. The complexity of the trade-offs that will be necessary to work between the various demands to produce an optimal solution will be considerable. As I shall bring out in a later amendment, I believe that it is less than clear who is responsible for making that happen. I will make that point later. The point I make now is that the burden is likely to fall back on the CAA.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me and sort of assure me that money would not be a problem—I hope she reaffirms that. In her letter, she basically said that any additional expenditure that the CAA incurred could be met by industry through an appropriate levy procedure.
The real problem is talent, as is true throughout our economy. The number of people who have the skills to work in this area is limited. Therefore, I would value in the Minister’s response an assurance to the House that the pool of talent available to the CAA, and indeed to other parties involved, is sufficient. If it is not sufficient, what are we going to do about it?
The second part of this group is essentially whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. Industry has raised the issue that there will be a conflict in the CAA between its responsibilities for policy execution and for regulation. It used to be a feature of the finance sector that firms would declare that there were Chinese walls and that these walls worked. As we know from the financial crisis, they worked to the extent of a bottle of Bollinger. I hope the Minister does not frown too readily; certainly at least one wall went down for the price of a bottle of Bollinger.
We could well have conflict between parts of the CAA. I am sure that they are people of great regulatory correctness, but when the same business has two parts trying to do things that might be in conflict, it is important to know how they can assure society that no conflict takes place. It is simple things, such as whether there will be physical separation. Will the two parts be in different buildings? How will we manage to assure industry, for whom significant financial consequences rest, that the CAA parts which will both be involved in this exercise are properly separated?
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, we also question whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill. I have often raised in this Chamber the fact that the CAA has an extraordinarily diverse range of responsibilities, which it seems to carry out very effectively. I say that with great care, because, while I support the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in the call for there to be adequate Chinese walls, that is not a criticism of the CAA and the way it has so far done its job. However, no organisation is ever perfect. It is important that it is given the resources and set-up that enables it to carry on undertaking its various and broad roles in a fully efficient way.
The Government add to the CAA’s responsibilities all the time. They have done so on several occasions over the last two or three years. It seems always to rise to the challenge, but it is important that the Government put the right structure in place. Therefore, I support the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, when my noble friend comes to respond to the argument, would she accept that the Civil Aviation Authority already deals with what could be considered potential conflicts? I think in particular between the economic regulation group, which is the economic regulator for the airport sector, on the one hand and the safety regulation group on the other, which, as the name suggests, performs oversight and regulation of safety. This is not new ground for the CAA, which is a highly competent, highly professional organisation with a very difficult and, as the noble Baroness said, very broad mandate of economic and safety regulation. It is used to doing this. Of course there are new aspects in the Bill, but the principle of how the CAA operates is very well established, even down to some of the debates we had about changes in airspace policy, in which it has participated over the years. This is not new; airspace changes and it is rearranged under the current arrangements.
Lord Tunnicliffe
While I take the noble Viscount’s point, does he accept that I have raised this point because the industry has come to us and expressed its concern? This is the same industry that has lived in the environment he has just described. I cannot see a way round not having the CAA doing both these parts. I cannot see who else would have the skills set, but we may have to debate that later. There has to be some process for convincing the industry that the separation in this case is effective. My concern about Clause 5 standing part is to get that assurance out of the Government.
Viscount Goschen
No one here would disagree with the noble Lord this is complex and difficult stuff. The point I was trying to make, which is entirely valid, is that the CAA, under its existing mandate, already balances these types of conflicts. There is not a great deal new here, certainly in principle.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for introducing this group. I shall start with Amendment 12 and then move on to matters relating to Clause 5 stand part.
As noble Lords have already noted, airspace modernisation is complex: it is a long-term programme and will require close oversight from the CAA in its co-sponsor role and the expert capability of its regulatory teams to assess airspace change proposals. These will be submitted by sponsors under the master plan which is being produced by the Airspace Change Organising Group, ACOG. That all makes sense but it is complicated.
It is crucial that the CAA has the resources to carry out these important functions. I can reassure the Committee that the CAA already reports on its resourcing through multiple channels and these reports are in the public domain. In December 2019 the CAA published its annual report on progress against the airspace modernisation strategy. The CAA is required to produce this report every year through the directions made by the Secretary of State. This report includes an overview of CAA’s resourcing position against the strategy. The next one will be published towards the end of this year. The CAA also produces an annual report covering all of its activity, including its resourcing position and its top-level risks to the organisation. Again, this information is available publicly and is provided as part of its annual consultation on its charging scheme.
On the timing of the report specified in Amendment 12, it is unlikely that the Government, or indeed the CAA, would know within six months of the Bill coming into force whether it will be necessary to use any of powers in the Bill, when it might be necessary to do so and how many airspace change sponsors may need to be directed. Therefore, in addition to those already produced, a report on a specified day would probably not add much to what is already in the public domain. However, I will share the most recent CAA report on airspace modernisation of December 2019 after the debate.
On Clause 5 stand part—this is an important consideration which is worth time—the clause gives the Secretary of State powers to delegate the Secretary of State’s functions under Clauses 2 to 4 to the Civil Aviation Authority and for a notice in writing of this to be published by the CAA. It would provide another means for the airspace changes identified to help deliver the strategy to be delivered, but only if it appeared desirable for this to do so in the future. The CAA is the nation’s airspace regulator and has the expertise to take on this role if required. Given that both the Secretary of State and the CAA have various roles in relation to airspace change, appropriate internal governance structures would need to be put in place, an issue mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Goschen.
This is important because the CAA carries out many different functions—it is a policymaker, a policy implementer, a regulator and a decision-maker—and, as noted by my noble friend, it is able to manage these kinds of conflicts of interest. I frowned earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, tried to liken the CAA to an investment bank, but the comparison is not a valid one.
The CAA is an entirely different sort of organisation. The incentives for going against what would be put in place are simply not the same. For example—again, it is not proposed that this would be done, but it is to provide flexibility—if the Secretary of State decided to delegate these powers to the CAA, the Secretary of State and the CAA would need to put in internal governance structures. For example, the DfT would need to make internal governance arrangements to separate the teams for discharging the new powers of direction, deciding on whether to call in an ACP and making recommendations to Ministers on that called-in ACP. This is rather like what the DfT does already on decisions on DCOs where one Minister decides and another Minister is kept well out of the process, and it works. The CAA would make similar internal governance arrangements to separate the CAA teams tracking ACPs, advising on when to use the power, deciding on an ACP and discharging any new powers to direct ACPs if delegated to the CAA. The CAA has already created the internal governance structure that separates the first and second items there because that happens already.
One of the things I wish to press home to your Lordships today is that ACPs are already being considered and are successfully reaching the other side. So when the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was talking on the previous group about possible challenges that will occur between airports and asking how they are going to be resolved, we are already resolving them. This process has been going on for quite some time. It is only because of the new aviation modernisation strategy and its requirement to do it on a much more complex area, according to the master plan, that we have decided to take these powers. However, in normal circumstances without these powers airports are perfectly capable of sitting down, talking to each other and coming up with an equitable agreement. In this case, a CAA team would be tracking and advising an ACP, and another team would be making the decision. I believe that the CAA is well used to making these sorts of decisions, if it were to need to do so in future, and to creating those Chinese walls between the different functions it is expected to carry out.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The assurances the Minister has just provided are clearly useful. Will they be formally published in any way, in an appropriate document—a CAP or something like that—so that the industry can see what is happening, what governance structures are being put in place and the extent to which there might be physical separation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That is a very good suggestion from the noble Lord. I will certainly take it back to the officials and consider how that might be taken forward. I agree that it certainly would provide reassurance to all stakeholders involved in this process to know that in circumstances where the powers were delegated it was clear what was going to happen. I will be in touch with the noble Lord with more information.
Skills are very important because airspace change requires specific skills. The CAA’s annual progress report includes details specifically covering the resourcing plan for the oversight function, which is the high-level function to make sure that airspace modernisation is happening, and the technical expertise which is required to assess the airspace change proposals. I know that the CAA has a medium-term recruitment plan. Last year it was successful in recruiting the people that it needed. It is early days to speak about this year, but it has a plan in place and it knows how many people it will need as ACPs start coming down the track. Although such circumstances are not currently foreseen, we would like to have the flexibility to allow the CAA to take over these powers if deemed appropriate, or if circumstances arise in the future where the Secretary of State feels that it is the best way to go forward. I hope that, based on my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I thank the Minister for her response and will study her words carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Responsibility for CAA airspace strategy
( ) The Secretary of State is responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy.( ) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out progress towards the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy.( ) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12-month period, within six months of that period ending.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy, and require related reports.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we come to our most important amendment. The Minister will no doubt tell me that it is unnecessary; none the less, we feel it is important. The essence of Amendment 13 is that the Secretary of State must take responsibility for this process—and it must be personal responsibility.
I have very little faith in the process. I have suffered personally from this sort of situation in delivering a large project. We set down in all the project agreements that parties must co-operate, but they did not. Technically, we had various enforcement mechanisms but these run into the courts and the courts run into delay—and you cannot afford delay. It is pretty weak. The structure requires all participants to behave benignly. Unfortunately, these organisations are in the business not of being benign but of making profits. They are large organisations owned by shareholders, and the shareholders expect profits. I am afraid that the history is not terribly good. There was a project called the London Airspace Management Programme—LAMP, the stated aim of which, according to the CAA, was
“to redesign the airspace network over the whole of London and the south-east”—
not unlike the master plan. The CAA says:
“Initial plans were to consult on a complete package of network changes and 'swathes' and follow this up with airport-specific consultations, prior to a phased implementation at single, or groups of, airports. However initial design work and programming issues meant that this plan was revised so that LAMP design and consultation was to be addressed in two main phases. The first centred around London City and Gatwick (referred to as LAMP Phase 1A) and the second around Luton, Stansted and Heathrow”.
This comes from a report by the CAA; I would like to make sure that the correct document is quoted —it is in CAP 1692, on the end phase. The rest of the programme was essentially abandoned. I have just read out paragraph 23, but this is also set out in paragraph 24 and 25 et cetera. In a sense it is a sorry tale, but not one that we should be surprised about. It requires the miracle idea that individual entities in this process are able to maximise their own position and, at the same time, that of the whole. When one thinks about it logically, that is fairly improbable.
So, one looks to how we are going to do it this time. The Minister’s answer will probably quote CAP 1711b, which is the airspace modernisation governance. I hope she had more success in understanding it than I did. I got to paragraph A7, which followed a flow diagram headed “Governance structure for airspace modernisation” that I did not understand, showing the roles for delivering airspace modernisation. I thought, “Is there something tangible here?” Paragraph A7, under the heading “Airspace Strategy Board”, says:
“The Aviation Minister-chaired Airspace Strategy Board (ASB) is the first tier of the governance structure.”
I thought, “I’m there. That is where it must happen.” But the next sentence says:
“The Airspace Strategy Board is not a decision-making board, but will engage stakeholders on the policies that will govern the strategy and will advise DfT on potential changes to the overarching policy, regulatory, legal and funding framework if these are required to address delivery issues.”
So it is not decision-making, it is just a talking shop.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, at the risk of being boring—I apologise if I am—I ask my noble friend again if the Ministry of Defence is part of this discussion group.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I cannot help but feel that this is fundamentally a bad amendment. I certainly oppose the CAA being the prime adjudicator on airspace. It should really be the other way around; the Government should set the strategy, which is then implemented by the CAA. The power of the CAA in airspace strategy should not be increased; rather, it should be constrained to act in a role to advise the Government on safety matters related to airspace. Overall, I believe that the management of modernisation should firmly rest with the Government.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Could I interpret that as the noble Lord agreeing with me?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, as I have said and will probably say many times during the passage of this Bill, airspace modernisation is incredibly complex. A wide range of organisations are responsible for delivering it, and it will be for the benefit of the community as a whole. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about who is ultimately responsible for delivering it. I hope I may be able to add some clarity on the exact responsibilities of the Secretary of State, the Department for Transport and the CAA with regard to airspace modernisation, because it is far from straightforward.
Under Section 66 of the Transport Act, the Secretary of State may give directions to the CAA imposing duties, conferring powers or both with regard to air navigation in a managed area. That is our first stage: the Secretary of State giving instructions or directions to the CAA. In those directions given by the Secretary of State to the CAA, the Secretary of State directed it to prepare and maintain a co-ordinated strategy and plan for UK airspace up to 2040, including modernising the use of such airspace. Again, I believe that all noble Lords will be in agreement with that, which is what has happened.
The CAA is therefore responsible for preparing the strategy, as set out in Clause 8(1), by reference to the directions. If the directions change, the strategy would then change. This is consistent with the CAA’s role as a specialist aviation regulator and its broader statutory responsibilities. The CAA meets this requirement through its airspace modernisation strategy, CAP 1711, and of course the governance of that, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in CAP 1711b.
It is envisaged that the master plan currently being developed to identify in more detail the sort of changes that we will look for will become part of the CAA’s airspace modernisation strategy, which it has been asked to prepare by the Secretary of State. The legislation therefore makes it clear that the CAA is required by the Secretary of State to prepare and maintain the airspace strategy and to publish a report on it, and that the Secretary of State will hold the CAA accountable for this, while Parliament will hold the Secretary of State to account.
However, although that stands in all circumstances, it is not quite so straightforward, because there are responsibilities that lie elsewhere. It is important that we recognise that so, alongside the CAA and the DfT having responsibilities to co-sponsor the framework, the actual delivery cannot take place without the active participation of the industry. This precisely makes the case for the powers that we seek to take in the Bill that the Committee is discussing. We hope for the wonderful carrot world of active participation by the industry, and we have the stick of a potential direction if that does not happen. The noble Lord mentioned the previous attempt at airspace modernisation; he is absolutely right that it did not work because there were no sticks. It was therefore difficult to focus minds on reaching an agreement without the need to use a stick. It would not be beneficial for our relationship with the industry, or indeed stakeholders, to utilise the stick too readily—but, as a last resort, we would.
On the amendment’s requirement to lay a Statement in Parliament on progress against the strategy, I think I mentioned that the CAA already provides an annual report on the progress against the modernisation strategy. I therefore feel that that is probably not warranted. I hope I have clearly explained where the current roles and responsibilities lie so that there is no confusion and that, on the basis of this explanation, the noble Lord might—no, he might not.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The Minister says that the Secretary of State now has a stick—great. It is a very blunt stick, if I may say so. Nevertheless, does that mean she accepts that if this goes wrong, and an effective airspace strategy does not emerge from the process, the Secretary of State will be responsible for that failure?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
At the end of the day, in maybe a decade’s time—I do not know how long this will take but it may well be in a decade’s time—I suspect that if this is not going according to plan, there will be questions in this House and in the other House. It will then be for the Secretary of State to answer those questions; in that respect, he has responsibility for making sure that this programme proceeds. However, as in many areas of the world that we live in, there may be circumstances that are beyond his control and are the responsibilities of others. Essentially, however, the responsibility for directing the programme lies with the Secretary of State.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I thank the Minister for that response and, while I will consider her words with care, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Emissions reporting
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report detailing total emissions of targeted greenhouse gases as set out in section 24 of the Climate Change Act 2008 from aircraft beginning or terminating flight in UK airspace over a 12 month period ending not more than six months before the report is laid.(2) The report must meet the obligations laid out in Article 5 of the 1998 Aarhus Convention.(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12 month period, within six months of that period ending.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on aviation emissions and ensure compliance with Article 5 of the 1998 Aarhus Convention.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, the amendment would require publication of a report on aviation emissions. Although this information is already available, the report would ensure that it was presented in such a way as to comply with the Aarhus convention, which considers steps to reduce emissions.
According to the Government, the Bill will enable sustainable growth in air travel. In light of climate change, there is of course a debate as to whether it is right for the Government to increase air travel—or, at least, whether they should explain how they will ensure that growth is sustainable and how they intend to offset emissions. The Government should make emissions information readily available and allow for greater accountability over their policies to reduce them.
A key section of the Aarhus convention is about access to information,
“the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities … This can include information on the state of the environment, but also on policies or measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Applicants are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they require it. In addition, public authorities are obliged, under the Convention, to actively disseminate environmental information in their possession.”
I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
My Lords, why do the proponents of the amendment believe that this is the right legislative location for it? Perhaps I am missing something, but should it not be looked at as part of the Environment Bill that will come before us in due course or in some other capacity, rather than in the tight confines of what we are debating today? With great respect, I do not think that the noble Lord has explained precisely where it fits into these proposals.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I apologise for that. I just feel that the issue of the environment is so important that one should take every reasonable opportunity to raise it. One area where we all know that environmental information about emissions in this country is deficient is the acknowledgment of aviation and maritime impacts. This is clearly an aviation Bill, so it is reasonable to make the inquiry at this point.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, perhaps I can add to that response by saying that, when I discuss airspace modernisation with those who take part in the aviation industry, in one role or another they all raise the fact that this is a key opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions from the industry. CO2 emissions from transport are a huge source of problems, and aviation is the greatest part of them, not in percentage terms but because it is difficult to address. Solutions to many problems relating to road transport are gradually coming into general use, but no sensible time limit has been set for a solution to emissions from air travel. It is, therefore, very reasonable to suggest using this opportunity to see how much airspace modernisation has been able to contribute to reducing CO2 emissions from the aviation industry and to look at other ways in which this might be done.
Events of the last year have shown that, when you put information about the impact of CO2 emissions in the hands of the general public, they understand and start to take their own steps. However, aviation is a very large-scale industry that is difficult to crack through individual contributions—other than not flying, of course. A lot of people are taking that solution but, in the interests of the aviation industry’s future, it is surely important to take this opportunity to measure how effective airspace modernisation has been in reducing CO2 emissions.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support the views of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on this amendment. It is extraordinary that the air sector is the only one that does not pay any kind of fuel duty. I think that goes back to the Chicago convention a very long time ago. Air passenger duty was introduced as a way of trying to compensate. We can see how important the Government think that is, because they have given Flybe—which I keep going on about—a holiday from it, to enable it to survive. For me, the policy implications of this are all wrong. The Government do not really care about the environment. They want to keep this company alive because Virgin would not be able to save it and it would be a disaster. This might not be the right place to cover this important issue, but this is an aviation Bill and we need to see it addressed on a consistent basis, so I support the amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for tabling the amendment. I agree with him—and, I am sure, with all Members of your Lordships’ House—that the fight against climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time. It is absolutely right that we continue to highlight emissions, to publish data on them and to plan for their ongoing reduction. The Government already publish emissions data for domestic and international flights. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy reports annually on these greenhouse gas emission statistics. The statistics cover all sectors of the economy, including transport. Those for 2018 were published just last week and are readily available online. I will happily share a link so that all noble Lords can see them.
Within the statistics, individual transport modes—including aviation—can be identified. Domestic aviation is reported on separately from international aviation, because the methodologies used are different. The data is obtained from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, produced by Ricardo Energy and Environment. It is also available online. The amendment referred to the 1998 Aarhus convention, the three pillars of which are already implemented in domestic legislation. Article 5, which relates to access to information, has been implemented through a number of measures, including legislation such as the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Measures in the Bill, as many noble Lords have noted, can help tackle emissions by reducing the amount of fuel burn that will come from aircraft, because they will be making more efficient journeys into airports. We are also moving into circumstances now where new technologies will allow for steeper climbs and steeper descents into an airport: again, this reduces the amount of fuel needed. It will also reduce the need for holding stacks, a big user of fuel. Early analysis suggests that modernisation in the south-east could reduce the amount of fuel burn by 20%, which would be a 20% reduction in carbon.
However, I will go away and look at the data. I am as interested as anybody in making sure that the data is correct, that it is published correctly and that it is available for all to see, because only then will we be able to really see the impact of our actions. If the noble Lord has any further details of the sort of data he would like to see, I cannot guarantee to put it the Bill but I may be able to make sure that it is published by colleagues.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Will the noble Baroness be good enough to include in that information, which will be very welcome, the methodology behind the figure of 20%?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I will certainly look to see how that figure was calculated and write to the noble Lord. I am fairly sure that there is a robust methodology behind it.
Lord Bradshaw
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reduce the time limit on the determination of an appeal from 24 weeks to 12 weeks.
Lord Bradshaw
I have some experience of the matters in this clause, although not in respect of the air transport industry. As an academic I was involved, over the period of regulation and deregulation, in the activities of the Competition and Markets Authority.
The Bill is about efficiency, and what I am proposing is an improvement in efficiency. I presume that any appeal referred to in new Section 19A should be about competition matters only—I do not see any purpose in referring it to the CMA if it is about anything else—but the Bill allows it 24 weeks to consider the appeal. As I understand it, it has a very small panel of its members that considers aviation matters. These people ought to be known and put to work quickly. The pace of work of the CMA in some cases is such that a snail would be envious that it can go so slowly. I believe there is a strong case for saying that it should come to a decision within 12 weeks of a matter being referred to it. It should have its members, of whom there are a large number, at the ready. There are usually three or four of its members that consider a case and they should give it immediate attention. These people are drawn mostly from the academic community, for which time is something that can be spent lavishly, shall I say? I think this matter demands immediate action. The Bill is about efficiency; let us impart a little efficiency to this. I beg to move.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for introducing this amendment.
Schedule 3 introduces the new process by which the Competition and Markets Authority—CMA—may consider appeals against decisions by the CAA to modify conditions in the licence to provide air traffic services. The provisions in this schedule enable the licence holder, airlines and certain airports that are materially affected by the CAA’s decision to modify a licence condition to appeal that decision. The provisions also deal with matters including who may appeal, the grounds on which appeal may be allowed, what steps the CMA may take when it determines an appeal, the time limits for determination of appeal, and the publication of the appeal determination.
These appeal rights are essential to ensure that the CAA is accountable for its decisions and to safeguard the interests of the licence holder and others whose interests are materially affected by the CAA’s decision-making. As set out in the Bill, the CMA is required to determine an appeal within 24 weeks of the day the CAA publishes a notice of the decision that is subject to the appeal. This is in line with appeals relating to licences covering the economic regulation of airports in the Civil Aviation Act 2012. That is why we selected 24 weeks as a guide. The CAA may extend the appeal period, up to a maximum of a further 12 weeks, but only if there are good reasons. The CAA may also extend the appeal if there is a parallel appeal in the Competition Appeal Tribunal which the CMA considers to be relevant. Again, this is the same as under the Civil Aviation Act 2012.
I point out that the 24 weeks is already a shorter timescale than the CMA usually operates when it is dealing with price-control appeals from other sectors. I feel that we have settled on a good middle ground with 24 weeks. The Electricity Act 1989 allows the CMA six months to determine an appeal, and that is from the date that the permission to appeal is granted, not the original publication of the decision itself.
Permission to appeal to the CMA must be given within six weeks. If it were to be made at the latter end of that six weeks, and there was then an appeal, in the worst-case scenario the CMA would have only 18 weeks to grant permission, consider and determine an appeal, and so we feel that 24 weeks is entirely appropriate. However, if, in due course, we feel that the CMA is being a bit tardy, as the noble Lord suspects it might be, the Government are able to change the time limits for appeals and for the processes within the appeals. These can be made at a later date, perhaps once some appeals have been considered under the powers in new Section 19A(1) and paragraph 25 of new Schedule A1. I hope that, based on my explanation, the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
The Minister will be aware that one of the consequences of Brexit is a lot more work heading towards the CMA, something that our EU Internal Market Sub-Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Donaghy, is looking at. Is the Minister happy that the CMA will be able to recruit more people to cover the civil aviation issues as well as everything else, or will they be constrained by the usual Treasury financial limits?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
We have been discussing the Bill with the CMA. We are talking about appeals to modify the conditions in the licence of the single air navigation service provider which is dealing with the upper airspace. Therefore, we do not expect to keep the CMA particularly busy and are not aware that it would have a shortage of resources.
Lord Bradshaw
I thank the Minister for that reply. I was suggesting simply that there were areas where economy was possible. The Government say that they are committed to economy. I suggest that they look at this very seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that where a penalty is to be imposed for contravening a requirement in an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order, the penalty notice given by the Civil Aviation Authority must specify that requirement.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I come to a series of government amendments that are minor and technical, slightly improving the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree with them.
Schedule 5 gives the Civil Aviation Authority the tools that it needs to act in the most effective and proportionate way in response to contraventions by the licence holder of licence conditions or statutory duties. Those duties are otherwise known in the Bill as Chapter 1 requirements. The licence holder may also contravene orders, which may be enforced under these provisions.
The amendments concerning new paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of new Schedule B1 to the Transport Act 2000, which is in Schedule 5 to the Bill, are technical and relate to the procedure associated with the giving of a notification of penalties. They will ensure that the reason for imposing a penalty on an affected licence holder is made clear, and ensure alignment with equivalent provisions in the Civil Aviation Act 2012 so far as is practicable. The Government gave notice of the amendments on Second Reading.
The first amendment clarifies that, where a penalty is imposed for contravening a requirement in an enforcement or urgent enforcement order, the penalty notice given by the CAA must specify that requirement. The next amendment, to line 29 of page 48, inserts wording at the end and provides that, where a penalty notice is given by the CAA specifying a requirement of an enforcement or urgent enforcement order, that penalty notice must specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
The next amendment is to line 44 of page 49, and replaces “relevant Chapter 1 requirement” with
“requirement that the CAA has determined is being or has been contravened”.
It clarifies that, where a penalty has been imposed for contravening a requirement in an enforcement order, the penalty notice given by the CAA must specify that requirement. The amendment at line 46 of page 49 inserts wording towards the end that provides that, where a penalty notice has been given by the CAA specifying the requirement of enforcement, that penalty notice must specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given. The amendment at line 37 of page 50 leaves out from “with” and inserts further wording. It provides that, in determining the amount of a penalty, the CAA must where relevant have regard to the steps taken by a person towards complying with both the requirement of an order and the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
The amendment at line 40 of page 50 inserts some wording at the end and provides that, in determining the amount of the penalty, the CAA must where relevant have regard to the steps taken by a person towards remedying the consequences of both the requirement of enforcement and the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given. The amendment on line 41 of page 54 provides that a reference in new Schedule B1 to the Transport Act 2000 to remedying the consequences of a contravention of a requirement of an enforcement order includes paying certain amounts to a person by way of compensation or in respect of annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.
Overall, the amendments will enable the CAA to issue effective notices and ensure that the licence holder is treated fairly when the amount of a penalty is determined, therefore reducing the likelihood of challenge and allowing the Bill to function as intended. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe
It seems to me that the key words in that presentation were “minor” and “technical”. They had better be.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“(e) where the penalty would be imposed under paragraph 10, specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the enforcement order or urgent enforcement order (as the case may be) was given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that where a penalty notice is to be given by the Civil Aviation Authority specifying a requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order, that penalty notice must also specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that where a penalty has been imposed for contravening a requirement in an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order, the penalty notice given by the Civil Aviation Authority must specify that requirement.
“(da) where the penalty is imposed under paragraph 10, specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the enforcement order or urgent enforcement order (as the case may be) was given;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that where a penalty notice has been given by the Civil Aviation Authority specifying a requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order, that penalty notice must also specify the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
“(i) the requirement specified in the notice under paragraph 11(1) by virtue of paragraph 11(2)(c), and(ii) where the penalty is to be imposed under paragraph 10, the Chapter 1 requirement specified in the notice under paragraph 11(1) by virtue of paragraph 11(2)(e);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in determining the amount of a penalty the Civil Aviation Authority must, where relevant, have regard to steps taken by a person towards complying with both the requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order and the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in determining the amount of a penalty the Civil Aviation Authority must, where relevant, have regard to steps taken by a person towards remedying the consequences of both the requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order and the Chapter 1 requirement in respect of which the order was originally given.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that a reference in Schedule B1 to the Transport Act 2000 to remedying the consequences of a contravention of a requirement of an enforcement (or urgent enforcement) order includes paying certain amounts to a person by way of compensation or in respect of annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Report on General Aviation
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act is passed, lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of Part 1 and Part 2 of this Act on general aviation.(2) In preparing the report the Secretary of State must consult bodies including but not limited to–(a) the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association,(b) the General Aviation Safety Council,(c) the Light Aircraft Association,and summarise and respond to issues raised in that consultation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a report on the impact of Part 1 and Part 2 of this Act on general aviation.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, this amendment guarantees that general aviation is taken seriously in the process. General aviation is more important than people realise. Aviation 2050: The Future of UK Aviation, Command Paper 9714, published in December 2018, asserts that general aviation flying is worth about £1.1 billion and supports 10,000 jobs. It is a significant part of aviation and a significant employer.
There are Members in the Chamber—just about—who are part of the general aviation community. They may disagree with me, but my sense from friends in this community is that it feels unloved or left out. The short philosophical discussion I had earlier was about the fact that there is a general right to airspace—that, because it is owned by the whole community, it should be treated such that restriction of controlled airspace is balanced against general aviation’s right to use uncontrolled airspace.
It is crucial in this day and age in that it generates airline pilots for the United Kingdom. I lived in a highly privileged age when the national airlines generated their own pilots. They paid for my training—more accurately, they paid for me to have fun, but let us get back to the subject. It is very easy in these situations for these small activities to get lost in the consultation processes. The fact that this amendment calls for a report will mean that officials will have that in mind and increase their propensity to be able to show that the needs of general aviation are appropriately taken account of.
General aviation is not universally popular; it creates noise and is seen as the privilege if not of the rich—although private jets are a big chunk of it, and you have to be either rather important or rather rich to use one—then of those involved in sports flying and training. The cost of hiring an aeroplane is about 5p a second—£180 an hour upwards—so you have to be affluent, if not rich, to take part in it. It has different forces working about it in society, which is a good reason for making sure it has its own special place in the process, which this amendment would allow.
The Government set out their position in The Future of UK Aviation:
“The government aims to ensure that there are appropriate and proportionate policies in place to protect and support General Aviation (GA) and its contribution to GDP and jobs. The government recognises that the needs of GA have to be seen in the wider context of civil and military aviation. In areas such as the use of airspace and the allocation of slots it is important to balance the needs of private flying, commercial GA and scheduled aviation, so that all classes of aviation are properly and proportionately considered and the benefits of GA can be supported.”
My amendment goes towards ensuring that that objective is met. General aviation is something of an enigma, but it deserves the special attention that this amendment would require. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment and raising an important issue.
During an earlier part of our discussions today, I felt that one noble Lord almost suggested that by asking the question one attributes blame. The important thing for general aviation—for a start, that is a massive phrase, which incorporates many different strands of aviation—is that its position is recognised and it is given the right to make representations. I notice and particularly welcome the noble Lord’s amendment saying at proposed new subsection (2) that the report of the Secretary of State
“must consult bodies including but not limited to … the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association”
and the General Aviation Safety Council. Many organisations involved in aviation have strong views on this, and in the modern world, it is important that the situation is properly considered and a proper, strategic approach to it is developed.
Just as I stressed earlier the importance of commercial aviation to our economy, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made the significant point that general aviation is also worth money to our economy—although on a much lower scale. However, the phrase includes such things as the hugely important air ambulance services, so it is important that the views of those involved across the spectrum of general aviation are taken into account. This is not all just about people going out on leisure flights on a Sunday morning.
Viscount Goschen
My Lords, I repeat the declaration of my interests that I made at Second Reading; I am a private pilot and operator of an aircraft.
This House has developed a somewhat irritating habit of thanking people for things that they do not really want to thank them for just by way of rote. But I really do thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for raising from his position opposite the point about the importance of general aviation in the great ecosystem of aviation in the UK and of course internationally. It is an important part of the broad system of aviation; there is a strong and measured economic benefit to the nation, and there are other benefits, such as the production of pilots—the supply of pilots who come through training systems rather than training overseas. We have all sorts of disadvantages with training in the UK, the primary one of which is weather and the secondary one is cost, and it is very easy for training to be done overseas. So I very much associate myself with the breadth of the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made about the importance of general aviation and the breadth of what is covered by that system.
Successive Governments of different hues have made public statements about the importance of general aviation—this is not a political matter in any respect. But there are essential freedoms to be preserved, and it is important that this debate in your Lordships’ House has given some balance to this. A noble Lord said that perhaps general aviation feels unloved. Perhaps it does and perhaps it does not, but it is certainly an important factor in our broader aviation system in the UK.
I am not generally a great believer in endless reports from the Secretary of State on every Bill. There are endless demands on the Secretary of State to produce reports, and sometimes I would be interested in the production costs for the Civil Service and the amount of time that this takes. But the fundamental point is well made; a report of the sort that the noble Lord suggested would help to emphasise that and provide a bit of backbone for the Secretary of State in considering these matters. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can clear up something in my mind and perhaps in those of other noble Lords. We have talked about general aviation in the usual sense but, looking to the future, we will get more unmanned aircraft either working commercially in one form or another or working for the emergency services and so on. Will they get classified as general aviation? If so, should not their interests also be taken into account? I would like clarification on that particular point.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I likewise thank the noble Baroness. I must declare an interest. The Light Aircraft Association referred to in the amendment was once the Popular Flying Association, of which I had the honour of being president for a number of years, although I have long since ceased to do that.
There is some merit in concentrating the Secretary of State’s mind on these matters from time to time. I am therefore not unsympathetic to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—although hopefully today’s exchanges will serve the same purpose.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to a nice, uplifting debate on the final group of amendments in today’s Committee.
This Government, and in particular the current Secretary of State, are big fans of general aviation. We recognise completely that it is a key part of the aviation sector. It is an important source of pilots, engineers and technicians who may in future, in their turn, contribute to the success of commercial aviation; of course, they may instead stay in the general aviation sector and also be successful in its growth. So the Government support general aviation and will continue to ensure that its needs are not overlooked at both the local and national level when it comes to airspace modernisation. I assure noble Lords that we have taken steps to ensure that general aviation is represented at every single level of the airspace modernisation governance structure.
CAP1711b, the Government’s annexe to the airspace modernisation strategy, lists all the organisations that must be engaged. For example, the Airspace Change Organising Group, which is charged with creating the master plan, is required to demonstrate that it has engaged with GA bodies, including Airspace4All and the General and Business Aviation Strategic Forum, which is a much broader forum consisting of lots of different stakeholders from the general aviation sector. It must have carried out that engagement for the master plan to be accepted by the CAA. There are also two general aviation representatives on ACOG’s steering committee. The Airspace Strategy Board was discussed earlier. It is chaired by the Aviation Minister and meets regularly, and it too always has at least two representatives from GA, namely the GA advocate and a representative from, again, the General and Business Aviation Strategic Forum.
Furthermore, under CAP1616, the regulatory process that governs airspace change proposals, there must be consultation with local stakeholders, including general aviation, at many stages.
We are also aware that volumes of controlled airspace are underused. This has been a focus for the Secretary of State, who recently directed the CAA to carry out an airspace classification review to identify volumes of controlled airspace where classification could be amended. This is being done because we feel that we have a good relationship with general aviation and that we understand its needs.
The Secretary of State has also directed the CAA to prioritise airspace change proposals from GA aerodromes relating to global navigation satellite systems—a satnav-type approach. The DfT has provided the CAA with funding to set up a facilitation team to advise and support these small aerodromes in progressing these critical ACPs, and has provided it with financial assistance as well. So I hope that this reassures the noble Lord that we take the contribution of GA very seriously.
Turning to the timing of the proposed report, the amendment states that the Government must assess the impact of airspace modernisation on general aviation within 12 months of the Bill becoming an Act. I am sure that noble Lords will agree—and, indeed, have heard many times today—that this is quite a complex and time-consuming undertaking. Therefore, I do not believe that much airspace change would happen in 12 months, as most of the sponsors would be in a consultation phase for their ACP, and it would certainly be wrong for the Government at that stage to prejudge the outcome of those processes, which are of course independent.
I hope that noble Lords accept my assurances about the importance that the Government attach to general aviation and the measures that we are taking to ensure that all types of aircraft in the general aviation sector are heard, not only in airspace modernisation but far beyond that and within the strategy for the aviation sector as a whole.
I have just realised that I forgot about unmanned aircraft. Of course, airspace for unmanned aircraft will be a very important consideration. At the moment, it is envisaged that they will not fly in controlled airspace, so this is not therefore a matter for consideration today, but in future we will have to consider drones and what used to be called “unmanned traffic management”; I believe that it is now called “unified traffic management”. That is a whole new world of pain that perhaps we will return to in future legislation.
I hope that, based on these assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Trefgarne
I need to apologise once again to your Lordships, I am afraid. There is an interest I forgot to declare earlier: I am president of the British Association of Aviation Consultants. That is in the register, of course.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate; I have rarely had so much support. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, hit the nail on the head. Let us go back to the bigger picture. I take the point that this Government probably take general aviation more seriously than any recent Government, and that is a good thing. The problem is that it may well depend on the particular Secretary of State.
The beautiful thing about a regular reporting process is that it concentrates the mind. Anybody who has worked in a large organisation in which several work streams are going along knows that if a work stream is picked out by the chief executive, the board or whoever for regular reports, it sits there in the minds of the officials, operatives, project managers or whoever is trying to do it. They think: “We’ve got to produce this report, and because it will become public we’d better make sure that our reasons for our various actions are well explained.”
On the point about timing, as the Minister knows, it is entirely up to government to bring along amendments to suggest more appropriate timings. This is just an amendment to get the idea off the ground. I think that it is a pretty reasonable idea, and I hope the Government give it some more consideration. Of course, I will look at this debate with great care and decide whether to bring it back on Report. I think it will push things.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I would like to reassure the noble Lord that we will certainly give great consideration to what he has said today, and perhaps after Committee we might have further discussions about what this report might look like.
Lord Tunnicliffe
With those enthusiastic words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Wednesday 12th February 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 10-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (10 Feb 2020)
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I would like to put on record the considerable disappointment on these Benches that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will not be making an Oral Statement on the Government’s initial response to the White Paper on online harms. I seek an assurance from the Government Chief Whip, or indeed the Government Deputy Chief Whip, that government time will be made available for a full debate on the response to the White Paper.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has to say and I will discuss it with my noble friend the Chief Whip.
Motion
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley
Member’s explanatory statement
Probing amendment regarding whether an unmanned aircraft flying automatically on a pre-programmed route is the responsibility of its operator, even when it is not being manually controlled at the time from the ground.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 26. These are probing amendments about the phrase, in lines 8, 6 and 16 on page 64,
“the person is controlling the unmanned aircraft”
and seek the Minister’s response to a query I raised at Second Reading as to whether it would encompass all instances concerning an airborne unmanned aircraft where a constable required a person to ground it. As unmanned aircraft and drone technology advances, there may be pre-programmable types that, once airborne, will no longer be under active control from the ground.
As we advance into 5G, it might be possible for two or more individuals to have apps on their smartphones able to handle more than a single drone and passing control of them from one person to another. On a bigger scale, and as we know, this is what happens now when RAF operators controlling an RAF Predator UAV in the air over Syria from their base station in the United States pass monitoring and control to another operational team at RAF Waddington in the UK. Such control-sharing activity, scaled down, must be widely available soon, if it is not already.
With an app on a smartphone, I and many others can already turn lights or other devices on or off in our home at any time and from anywhere in the world with a wi-fi link. It will surely be possible for AN Other on the ground to switch from one UA onboard programme to another with just a smartphone. Noble Lords may have further suggestions of how and in what way drone and other unmanned aircraft capabilities will advance.
My amendment seeks to probe whether the present wording of Schedule 8, about an individual “controlling”, is sufficiently embracing to meet present and future possibilities of unmanned aircraft operational misuse that a constable wants to stop. The amendment would cover more than in-hand control while airborne, which smacks merely of attempting to deal with the single hobby-type user. Until an incident has been investigated, it may not be clear whether the operator is just a lone nuisance type, as may have happened at Gatwick, or a member of some terrorist team with advanced technology at their disposal. In other words, is the present wording of the Bill sufficiently comprehensive for a constable to act to cover all types of possible future operation that could be unlawful? Indeed, what should the constable be required to do if the operator is not physically controlling the flight of the UA? Perhaps this, too, needs to be covered for completeness, for I doubt that even my amendment would be adequate.
This is my second amendment and, as I mentioned, it is purely probing, to seek a response from the Minister to my concern that the present phrasing may be overly restrictive and so inadequate. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur (Con)
My Lords, I regret that I was unable to play a part at Second Reading, or indeed earlier in Committee, but I have a professional background in aviation, which some noble Lords will know about and which is declared in the register of interests, so I was particularly interested in the noble and gallant Lord’s amendment.
One thing that the civilian helicopter community does is patrol pipelines for gas, oil and all sorts of other things. Something that has begun to worry some of us is that a helicopter, for example, following a pipeline to inspect it and ensure that it subscribes to all the parameters the oil company wants of it might meet either a drone coming the other way—because drones can do that job—or a drone that is crossing the route because it is doing something else. If the necessary controls are not there, how can we ensure that the conflict is removed? Who will have responsibility for it? If the drone is autonomous and not within the geographical boundaries that have been set for it, where does responsibility lie?
These are real issues and it is the responsibility of all of us in aviation to ensure that airspace is properly managed. It concerns me, as chairman of an organisation that flies aircraft—helicopters, particularly—on these pipeline patrols, that a drone coming the other way, or crossing a pipeline and not under adequate control, could cause an accident. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure me.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I think the House knows that I used to be an RAF pilot. I express some disappointment that the clerks’ department, somewhere along the line, did not add my name to this amendment and a number of others—but I have accepted the apologies of that department.
There is a vast difference between “in control” and “controlling”. I live on a hill in Sandy, Bedfordshire, and so far I have collected two drones that were, by definition, very close to being over the 400 feet and certainly not in the line of sight. I think it is very important that we differentiate between those who are actually flying the drone and those who might technically own the drone or control the company that is flying the drone, or some other definition. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will recognise that this is not a superficial difference but a very significant one and that we must make sure that there is a clear definition. I thank my noble and gallant friend for raising the matter now.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, there is a remarkable similarity between the discussions on this amendment and the discussions we have had over the years on self-driving, autonomous cars. The only difference is that this is three-dimensional and the other one is generally two. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, both gave examples of a question I have long had. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, mentioned two drones meeting over a pipeline or something, but the problem remains: how does a constable identify the person who is in control, or whatever? He is sitting in his car with his machine—or however he is going to do it—but how will he identify that? He cannot really arrest either the drone or the person unless he can identify them first. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to explain this rather simple bit of logic which has escaped me so far.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for introducing this small group of amendments and giving us the opportunity to probe this wording, because it is incredibly important that we understand that the wording is fit for purpose. While I understand the intention behind his amendments, after careful consideration the Government believe that the existing wording in paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 regarding a person or persons controlling an unmanned aircraft is fit for purpose in relation to both manual and pre-programmed operations.
On Amendment 24, regarding the power for a constable to require a person to ground a UA—unmanned aircraft—a constable could exercise this power in relation to a UA performing a manual or pre-programmed operation if they had reasonable grounds for believing a person or small group of persons to be controlling that aircraft. Where this reasonable belief exists, the constable could require a person to ground the UA regardless of whether it was pre-programmed or not— hence the existing wording is sufficient for the power to be effective in the circumstances envisaged by the noble and gallant Lord.
A similar issue arises in Amendment 26; again, “controlling” refers to the UA when it is being flown either manually or in a pre-programmed mode if it is capable of that. It is therefore our view that the distinction that the amendment seeks to make would have no discernible benefit, since the description implies a person controlling a UA in line with the existing wording in the Bill. However, the Government recognise that UA technology is constantly evolving, and we will continue to keep our policies under review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose.
On the point made by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur about helicopters and pipelines, he is quite right that unmanned aircraft will increasingly be used for tasks such as patrolling pipelines, railways and all sorts of other things. However, under the current regulations drones should not fly over 400 feet and must remain within line of sight—to go beyond line of sight is against the regulations. They must have permission to do either of those two things. To get that permission, one would assume that those operating the helicopter would be aware that there might be drones operating in that area.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about identifying the person, the constable must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is controlling the unmanned aircraft. That is not infallible, but a reasonable suspicion is not certainty. Therefore, given that the drone must remain within line of sight, a person will probably be able to be seen.
I hope that, based on this explanation, the noble and gallant Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley
I thank the Minister for her reply, which I shall obviously want to look at. I am still left very unclear about the depth of thought that has been given to this. She talks about situations where somebody is obeying the law and this does not matter, but I am concerned about the individual who is not obeying the law—who is flying above 500 feet and beyond sight of their drone. It seems to me that more is required than is presently available in the Bill—but at the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
“( ) In requiring a person to ground an aircraft under this paragraph, a constable may also exercise the power to confiscate the unmanned vehicle.( ) A person whose unmanned aircraft is confiscated under this paragraph may apply to the magistrates court for an order for its return.”
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, this too is a probing amendment, as it does not fully capture the intention behind the issue that I raised during Second Reading on confiscation of equipment. The Minister at the time led me to believe that she would seek to answer in correspondence the issue that I raised, but the letter that Members have received does not refer to it. I do not blame her; perhaps she might deal with it today.
I have carefully read the Explanatory Memorandum and the Bill, and the only reference to confiscation is paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 8, which states:
“A constable may seize anything that the constable discovers in the course of a search under this paragraph if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that it is evidence in relation to a relevant ANO offence or a relevant prison offence.”
That part of the Bill seems to relate only to condition C under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 8; in other words, it relates only to prison intervention by drone-related offences. My Amendment 25 would add only a right of appeal for restoration of property. I am worried that I see no reference to confiscation under any other schedules to the Bill. I will concentrate my remarks on the links between Schedules 8 and 10, which is the subject of a later reference in this group—or it was until this morning, when I came here and found that there had been a regrouping.
Before doing so, I will make a few general comments. First, have we any estimate of the numbers of drones available for use in the United Kingdom, of all types, commercial and recreational? We have an estimate of 530,000 drone sales in 2014—that came out of one of these documents; I found it very hard to believe—and a further estimate of 1.5 million to be sold in subsequent years. Again, I do not know where this information comes from, but it is in one of the publications. Do the Government have any real stats on the availability of this equipment?
Secondly, I am not too worried about commercial operators. They will, generally speaking, keep within the rules and the law—although there is some evidence of the need for some commercial operators to be more knowledgeable, and for some airport operators to be more flexible and understanding about charging and issues of access, in particular regarding the size of restriction zones. My primary concern is the rogue operator, using sub-250-gram UAVs, and large equipment used privately by individuals, whether they are plain stupid in the way they use this equipment, or are drug dealers arranging for the carrying of drugs, crime gangs involved in illicit surveillance, potential terrorists who may wish to deploy weapons even in very small quantities or using small drones, or those who breach personal security where privacy is involved. Mr Geoffrey Hirst, a drone user, told a Commons committee recently that even a proportion of the recreational drone community are reckless, whether intentionally or not. We know that these small, sub-250-gram drones can be dangerous. When a joint test between the Military Aviation Authority and BALPA was recently undertaken, it was concluded that in a mid-air collision significant damage could be caused to a helicopter or aircraft.
I return to Schedule 10—subject to what has happened, but that was beyond my control. Under “Fixed penalties for certain offences relating to unmanned aircraft”, it states:
“The constable may give … a fixed penalty notice in respect of the fixed penalty offence if Condition A and Condition B are met.”
Condition A states that that includes: endangering another aircraft; causing any harm, harassment or alarm or distress; causing nuisance or annoyance; disturbing public order; or damaging property, all of which the accused could very easily deny. The only one that may be provable could be the undermining of good order in a prison, which is why we have the paragraph 2(6) of Schedule 8 confiscation provisions which I have already referred to. Nearly all the others can be denied by the accused, and it will be very hard for anyone to prove otherwise. If the police officer gives the offender within the zone the benefit of the doubt, the offender will receive only a fixed penalty notice. Furthermore, if the person is under 18, they will not even receive a fixed penalty notice—effectively, an open invitation for the adult offender to lay responsibility on minors to hide their guilt and penalty. In other words, “Not me guv, it was the kids that did it”. They will effectively run rings round the drone code, with its hyped registration, responsibility and distance control requirements.
Lord Craig of Radley
I will speak to my probing Amendment 27 and to Amendment 30. I follow the strong words that we have just heard from the noble Lord.
As I and many others stressed on Second Reading, the risk of a mid-air collision involving unmanned aircraft being operated illegally is very serious and even catastrophic. It would be remiss not to reflect the seriousness of that danger in the punishment awarded. Indeed, it might also be worth considering whether some form of third-party compulsory insurance should be acquired by all operators of unmanned aircraft.
The misuse of an unarmed aircraft should be liable not only to a fine, or imprisonment if the misuse were to be catastrophic, but should invariably include the forfeiture of the unmanned aircraft and its associated kit for any misuse that falls outside a single instance of the fixed penalty range of misbehaviour. A deterrent to misuse before flight is of potentially greater value than just a monetary punishment as the result of an airborne offence. Even in the fixed penalty range of misuses, a persistent offender should face the risk of forfeiture, or at least confiscation for a period of time.
It is too early to delve deeply into the secondary legislation that will introduce the fixed penalty arrangements. However, as with fixed penalty notices for car drivers, is it intended that a points system will be set up, so that an individual who repeatedly offends and amasses a number of penalty points within a set time will then face the confiscation of their unmanned aircraft and associated kit, either completely or at least for a period of time as the consequence of their repeated misbehaviour? The deterrent value of such a scheme is well worth considering, although I recognise that the administrative details for it will need careful thought and could even be deemed excessive.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, I would like to speak in support of Amendment 25, and again, I had hoped to see my name attached to it. I am not sure whether the Committee fully appreciates the sheer scale and numbers that we are dealing with. My judgment, as someone who has been keeping some track of what is happening, is that probably 2 million drones have now been sold and presumably are being flown. I have had the privilege of serving on the Public Accounts Committee with the noble Lord opposite, and on a number of occasions he and I would probe into issues in depth. I therefore say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the probing which the noble Lord has done should be listened to and assessed very carefully.
Yesterday I went to a briefing on the importation of illegal tobacco. I have never smoked so I have no real personal interest other than ensuring that the revenue that should legitimately go to Her Majesty’s Government does so. There is little doubt that the people behind the illegal importation of tobacco are incredibly creative and show enormous genius, with the result that huge quantities are coming into this country. Allied to that is illegal drug importation, to which the same applies. I have just renewed my shotgun licence. The police are exceedingly careful about the renewal of such licences, not least by those of the older generation, in which I put myself. I am not surprised about that. The police checked thoroughly into where the guns are kept and whether they are properly locked away, and that we had security arrangements to ensure that if someone did break in, alarms would be set off.
We are absolute beginners in this field of activity and its implications. My friend the noble Lord on the Benches opposite is right to say that we are dealing with the rogue element but—as I have demonstrated by giving just two examples in drugs and illegal tobacco importation, and there are others—the rogue element is there in great profusion. Moreover, drones themselves provide a wonderful facility for illegal importation activities. Even if my noble friend on the Front Bench is not able to accept the wording of the amendment, I hope that she will think about it seriously and possibly come back at Report either to accept it or to table it with some minor modifications.
I will say to noble Lords that if we do not take action at this point in time, we will rue the day.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has made an interesting comparison between drug and tobacco smuggling and the action of a drone. The difference is that a drone can do monumental damage, if a rogue operator gets in the way and starts doing things that they should not be doing. I saw an instance of drug smuggling in the Isles of Scilly a few years ago; not only was the boat being used to smuggle confiscated, but the man who was single-handedly bringing these drugs into the country was so frightened of being caught that, when the yacht was tied up in St Mary’s harbour, he decided that the best way to get away was to climb the mast. He fell to his death on the quay, which was very sad. He was desperate not to get caught, but the boat would have been confiscated, and I cannot see why a drone cannot be confiscated.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours gave some wonderful examples of the numbers involved. The drones should obviously be confiscated, and anyone who wants to get their equipment back should have to apply to a magistrate. The amendment seems very reasonable to me.
Lord Glenarthur
Is there any requirement for those who operate drones to ensure that they are fitted with transponders, which can be interrogated by other types of aircraft conducting their operations perfectly legally within the same airspace? Might some mechanism be found to ensure that those who operate drones without transponders are breaching the rules, to which the noble and gallant Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, have referred?
Viscount Goschen (Con)
This, again, is an aspect of the Bill where there is unanimity across all sides of the House—we are all trying to achieve the same purpose. The question is how best to do so, especially in an environment where technology is moving extremely fast. I am certainly sympathetic to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and other Members of the Committee.
When the Minister comes to reply to this very interesting debate, perhaps she might describe the other sanctions that a rogue operator may be subject to in addition to the fixed penalties outlined in Schedule 10. We are talking about a broad variety of potential consequences, from annoying the neighbours on a sunny summer’s afternoon to deliberately trying to destroy an aircraft containing hundreds of passengers over central London. What sanctions could have faced the operator or the person in control—to use the phraseology of the noble and gallant Lord—who caused the disruption to Gatwick only a short while ago whose extremely irresponsible actions could have resulted in a high degree of disruption to the whole travel system of the United Kingdom?
It may be more convenient to discuss my second point in a later group of amendments, but there is a real issue around promulgation of the law. Because these devices can be bought over the internet and from shops by people who I suggest may not be familiar with the Air Navigation Order, they are probably not aware of the rules and how dangerous this activity can be and its consequences. I look forward to my noble friend’s response.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I am eternally grateful for this thought-provoking debate on confiscation and forfeiture. A number of issues have been raised. I will endeavour to cover as many as I possibly can, but I am aware that a number of noble Lords have made some very thoughtful points, so I will go away and read Hansard to make sure I have covered everything. At times, some very good points that I think we can address were made. At other times, there may have been some slight misconceptions as to the different types of offences and penalties being placed on people.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Does that include all drones—commercial and recreational?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Yes, it includes all unmanned aircraft. Various bulk uploads will come from model aircraft clubs, so we expect that number to climb. Over the course of this Bill, perhaps when we get to Report, I am happy to look for an update on that and to give some indication of where we think more people registering their drones will come from.
Setting out the background to this, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, mentioned a number of offences to which he assumed a fixed penalty notice could be attached. I believe they may not be given for those more serious offences to which he referred. Subsequent to this, I hope to be able to set out precisely what will be given to each level of offence, because there is perhaps a little confusion. I will go through my explanation, because there are opportunities for confiscation and forfeiture, which I hope will mean that the noble Lords are content to withdraw their amendments. Let us just see how we go.
Amendment 25 would give the police the power to confiscate an unmanned aircraft if a constable has required it to be grounded. Amendments 27 and 30 would require somebody to forfeit the unmanned aircraft as the penalty for unlawful use. I reiterate that my department has worked closely with the Home Office to ensure that the powers in this Bill are proportionate—that is an important word here—because we do not want to stifle a nascent, growing and potentially very useful drone industry. We do not want to discourage or alienate those who seek to use the unmanned aircraft sector lawfully, because it should be very useful as we go forward. We have also worked with the police, who are confident that they have the powers in this Bill to provide effective enforcement.
The amendment on confiscation, Amendment 25, would provide a potentially disproportionate power to the police, in addition to the existing powers in the Bill for them to require an unmanned aircraft, rather than an unmanned vehicle, to be grounded.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Why should a drone that goes into one of these restricted zones, which could potentially cause huge damage, not be confiscated?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
If the noble Lord will bear with me, that drone would probably be confiscated by a constable for a different reason.
In our opinion, the amendment on forfeiture would also provide a potentially disproportionate penalty for those who commit most likely very minor offences of failing to ground an unmanned aircraft when asked to do so by police, or failing to comply with a constable’s request to inspect that small unmanned aircraft. While we feel that it would be disproportionate to insert these powers of confiscation and forfeiture regarding these two offences, it should be noted that the police have powers of confiscation elsewhere in the Bill and already in law.
Under the Bill, the police will have the power to stop and search a person or vehicle where they have reasonable grounds to suspect they will find an unmanned aircraft that is or has been involved in the commission of one of the offences specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 8. This is for more serious offences, such as interfering with aircraft. This stop and search power gives the police constable the power to seize anything they discover in the course of a search if they have reasonable grounds to believe it is evidence relating to one of those offences.
The summary of all the stop and search offences was given out at the all-Peers meeting and I am very happy to send round this ready reckoner, which shows which offences fall under stop and search if there is suspicion of them. They are, for example, flying above 400 feet or within an exclusion zone of an airport. If there was a stop and search in that case, that item could be seized as evidence. Similarly, when entering and searching a premises under warrant using the powers in the Bill, a constable might seize an unmanned aircraft or any article associated with it if they have reason to believe it has been involved in the commission of one of the offences set out in paragraph 7 of Schedule 8.
Lord Craig of Radley
The noble Baroness said the constable has the power to seize, but has he powers to retain and make forfeit, or would it be just a temporary seizure until such time as the courts had dealt with the circumstances? The point of my amendment, and I believe that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is that of a deterrent for illegal use. Seizure or forfeiture would be a very good deterrent. As we mentioned earlier, we are dealing not with people who are behaving and who we are trying to encourage to grow their legal use of drones, but with people who might be or are operating them illegally. Those are the people I want to deter.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble and gallant Lord makes a very interesting and valid point about deterrence, which is probably quite separate from the line I sought to convince him of. Noble Lords have mentioned that a very good drone might cost, say, £500, but the penalties we are talking about for some of the offences that could have been committed are fines up to a maximum of £2,500.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
If, indeed, they are paid, which I will come on to—perhaps in the letter—because there are some very significant deterrents. If we are after a deterrent, we have those deterrents. Do we feel it is proportionate for property to be forfeited for fairly minor contraventions? We do not.
Lord Craig of Radley
I am sorry to interrupt again, but on a minor thing, as I said in my opening remarks a single misbehaviour under what would be a fixed penalty notice would not be a cause for forfeiture, but repeated misbehaviour that might individually be at the level of the fixed penalty notice should be taken into account. That is why I suggest that, under those circumstances, forfeiture, at least for a period if not completely, should be part of that penalty.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I suspect that in those circumstances, the person would just go out and buy another drone. We are between a rock and a hard place: drones are not so expensive that forfeiture is a huge issue, versus a fixed penalty notice, which may also be significant. We do not feel that forfeiture would make a significant difference to the deterrents. The penalties already in place are good ones. However, for the sake of completeness, I will mention that under current law, if a person has refused to ground their unmanned aircraft and has been arrested for an offence, the police officer has the power, under Section 32 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, to search the arrested person and to seize anything that is evidence.
Lord Naseby
I understand where my noble friend is coming from, but what she perhaps does not fully comprehend is that to those of us who have been involved in this industry for years, this is a highly dangerous area—far worse than motorbikes. The Government have the opportunity to lay down clearly that anybody who transgresses will be hit hard. This does not affect the genuine operators, who will take great care. However, quite frankly, listening to my noble friend, I can see this being abused. I see drones every weekend where I live. Half of them, perhaps, are being flown correctly, but a significant proportion are not, hence the two in my shed that crashed in the last six months.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend makes a very interesting statement. This Government recognise that in certain circumstances, when drones are not being flown correctly, it is literally a life and death situation. This is why the penalty for the most significant offences—recklessly or negligently acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or any person in an aircraft—is an unlimited fine or up to five years in prison.
My noble friend suggested that only half of those drones are flying within the rules. That is why we have introduced the competency and registration system. People are taking the competency test. If the Bill is passed and the police have the powers, they will be able to stand in my noble friend’s garden, identify those who may not be operating within the law and do something about it. Without the Bill, they could not.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am aware that my noble friend supports the Bill, and I appreciate his support. The Government are just saying “proportionality”. The Government’s role is not to come down hard across the entire sector, but to be proportionate. Those guilty of a minor contravention will get a fixed penalty notice; for something more serious, it is up to five years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
Turning to a couple of points I have not covered, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur made an important point about electronic conspicuity, or remote ID. This is being introduced into drones. Although it is not ubiquitous at the moment, electronic conspicuity for all aircraft was consulted on in the Aviation 2050 consultation. We will be looking at how we take that forward but, as part of EU retained law, the EU-delegated Act is already within domestic law. It contains remote identification requirements. This delegated Act came into force on 1 July 2019. We are currently in a transition period; within three years, electronic conspicuity and remote ID will be a requirement for all drones.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
The Minister referred to consultation. Could she refresh my memory as to when that consultation took place, when it was completed and when the results were published?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am afraid I do not have that information to hand. I would be remiss if I tried to remember, so I will write to the noble Baroness. I think that was a consultation for all aircraft. She will be aware that the Government are looking at general aviation and, as we move forward, the interplay between unmanned and manned aircraft in a unified traffic management system. That is some way off but we have to start thinking about it now. The electronic conspicuity of drones comes from EU regulation and is now in domestic law. We are in the three-year period during which all drones will have to have conspicuity.
My noble friend Lord Goschen mentioned other penalties and I hope I have given him some idea of their level. I will send this note around because it is useful in setting out exactly what happens if you contravene certain of the regulations.
As for getting people to understand what is required of them, we work with the retailers and the manufacturers—the CAA has the drone code—to make sure that we get the message out as much as possible. This is particularly important around Christmas, when there is a great deal of activity, so that when people get a drone—are given one or buy one—they know that it is not a responsibility-free activity and exactly what their rights and responsibilities are.
I feel a letter coming on on this one. There is quite a bit to cover about proportionality, deterrence and the different levels of penalty for different offences.
Lord Berkeley
I am pleased that the noble Baroness will write a letter. It might be a long one, but that is good. In this debate we have swung between saying, “Most people are just doing it in the garden. They might have the drone under their bed. If they go up, they do not fly hard, it is not going high and it won’t hurt anyone much,” to the other extreme when it could bring down an aeroplane or worse. My noble friend and others commented on the number of drones that may be flying and wondered how many will be flying illegally—in other words, without notification, without a licence or whatever. The question of proportionality is therefore quite serious; for some offences confiscation may be too strong a penalty and for others nothing like enough. In her letter, will the Minister give us some idea of how many constables or whatever we are to call them—the enforcement agency—will be trained to do this work and how many offences might they have to follow up each year? I have not a clue. You can think of every policeman in the country being able to do this—which is stupid—or of it all being done centrally. However, it would be good to have some idea of how enforcement might take place so that people like me, who have no great experience of this, can compare it to what happens on the roads or anywhere else. I will be glad to hear the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I hope he will be able to stick around until we get on to later amendments dealing with police resourcing and how the training will work.
Let me go back to first principles. The Bill is about giving the police the powers they need to put in place the penalties that already exist. It is very much about filling in that gap. We are working closely with the police and this is what they have asked us to do to give them the powers to clamp down on illegal drone use. The situation is in flux as people register but, for people who have not registered and are flying illegally, the police now have these powers. Without the Bill, they would not have the powers. With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend please include me in the list of addressees for the important letter she is going to write?
Lord Campbell-Savours
I shall say just one or two words. The Minister has offered to write us a letter. It is not a letter we want. We want it in the law. The letter will interpret the law in a way that she believes will satisfy the concerns we have expressed. I am worried about the guy out there with a drone. He is not going to read the law. He wants very simple principles established that he can understand. In the light of the interpretation that the Minister has put on the law during the interventions, I do not understand the law, and the other day I spent more than an hour going through these clauses to try to work out what was applicable in what circumstances. I put it to the Minister that the law is badly drafted. I have never said that in this House before. It is badly drafted, and we need far greater clarity in the clauses that Parliament is required to clear.
I predict that in the Commons, when MPs with airports in their constituency get their hands on the Bill, they will rubbish this clause because they will be dissatisfied with the provisions as explained to us. I say to the civil servants now that they should think in advance, before the Bill gets to the Commons, about how they will deal with the objections that will inevitably arise.
The Minister says that the role of government is to be proportionate. I agree. However, a small drone of 250 grams within a restricted zone can bring down a jumbo jet, with hundreds of lives lost. I think I am being proportionate and the Government are not in not understanding that that is the danger we are considering. The Minister has laid words on the record today that, in the event of a disaster, people will pore over and wonder what the hell she was talking about. I shall no doubt come back to this on Report, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Annual statement on stop and search demographics
2A(1) The Secretary of State must, at the end of the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out how many times the police have exercised the stop and search powers under paragraph 2 of this Schedule.(2) The statement must include a list of each incident broken down by protected characteristics of each person searched, as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report in similar terms covering each subsequent 12 month period, within six months of that period ending.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish details of the demographics of those who have been stopped and searched.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, there are three matters in this group: Amendments 28 and 29 and whether Schedule 8 should stand part of the Bill. I shall address Amendment 28. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 sets out the powers of a constable to stop and search persons or vehicles and includes the conditions that have be met in order to do so. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish details of the demographics of those who are stopped and searched. The purpose of the amendment is to find out what the Government intend in this regard.
The amendment refers to the Equality Act 2010 and the nine protected characteristics: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race, religion or belief; sex; and sexual orientation. At Second Reading the Government said that stop and search demographics would be available for those subject to a stop and search under these powers, and that
“they will be published by the Home Office in the usual way.”—[Official Report, 27/1/20; col. 1295.]
What does “published by the Home Office in the usual way” mean in relation to this amendment and the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010?
How did the Government come to the decision to enact these stop and search powers under Schedule 8? In autumn 2018, the Home Office ran a public consultation on
“Stop and Search: Extending police powers to cover offences relating to unmanned aircraft … laser pointers and corrosive substances.”
The Government indicated in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, if I have read them correctly, that responses to the consultation were broadly unsupportive of proposals relating to unmanned aircraft, with many respondents feeling that the intrusive nature of stop and search powers would be disproportionate to the likely threat.
Since that consultation, we have had the incident at Gatwick Airport at the end of 2018. Following that incident, in response to the consultation, the Home Office committed itself to developing a stop and search power for offences related to flying an unmanned aircraft in the flight restriction zone of a protected aerodrome. The Home Office also indicated its intention to keep the further expansion of stop and search powers in relation to other unmanned aircraft offences under review.
The Bill now provides the police with the power to stop and search any person or vehicle, subject to certain conditions. At Second Reading, in response to the point that the Home Office consultation was completed before the Gatwick incident, the Minister said:
“I reassure noble Lords that we have of course been in touch with members of the police force around Gatwick and, indeed, all over the country to make sure they are content with the powers in the Bill. We believe that they are. We have a close relationship with them, so they have been involved since Gatwick in making sure these powers are appropriate. Of course, we still meet with the police and other stakeholders to discuss these matters in general.”—[Official Report, 27/1/20; cols. 1291-92.]
Bearing in mind that, in the public consultation prior to Gatwick, responses were broadly unsupportive of proposals on stop and search powers in relation to unmanned aircraft, were any meetings or other forms of contact had with those who had been broadly unsupportive of the proposals, to check that their views had changed since the Gatwick Airport incident? Did the Government make an assumption that views would have changed, or did they not intend anyway to take any notice of the broadly unsupportive responses to the stop and search proposals, so that it did not really matter whether views had changed as a result of the Gatwick incident? A government response on this would be helpful.
The second item in this group relates to Schedule 8 standing part. I want to talk about paragraph 5(11) of Schedule 8, which inserts a power at new subsection (4B) into Section 93 of the Police Act 1997. This enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to add or remove an offence from the definition of “relevant offence” set out in subsection (4A), also inserted by this Bill. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 deals with
“authorisations to interfere with property”
or interference with wireless telegraphy. This is a Henry VIII power. In their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government said that it was necessary to ensure that the list of relevant offences remained up to date
“if the evolution of technology results in unmanned aircraft being used in new or different types of offence.”
I note that they used the word “if”, not “as”, in relation to the evolution of technology; clearly the Government do not actually know whether they will need this power to add, by regulations, additional or even completely new offences.
In the same memorandum, the Government say:
“The power to interfere with property or wireless telegraphy is a significant power which entails the possibility of interferences with, for example, people’s property rights.”
Further on, the Government refer to
“any expansion of the power to interfere with property and wireless telegraphy”.
Yet the Government want to have this “significant power” and this “expansion of the power to interfere” with “people’s property rights” by adding additional new offences that they do not know they will need and appear unable to describe, and to do so not by primary legislation but by regulations that cannot be amended.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord’s comments, particularly in relation to Amendments 28 and 29. Our experience of the use of stop and search powers over the years has revealed that the police have to perform a very careful balancing act in their use of those powers. The idea of ensuring that they are looked at carefully after a period of time would therefore certainly assist in avoiding the misuse of powers.
This is particularly complex because the leisure use of drones is about a lot more than a group of people standing in a field and having a little fun. There are a lot of brilliant commercial uses of drones, along with some very important uses by the military and in our emergency services generally. But there is a complex, unofficial use of drones nowadays and it is not all innocent fun. They are widely used in the drugs trade. It is therefore important that the use of stop and search powers is exercised with a view to looking at potential criminality, beyond whether a drone is being used in the wrong place or flown too high and so on. However, that has to be done proportionately and carefully. Our experience over many years in this country is that there is nothing quite like a little transparency in the way in which a power is exercised, to ensure that it is done properly and fairly.
I support Amendment 29, too, because of the obvious fact that the Prison Service is greatly overstretched. It can be argued logically that if you used these resources to control the misuse of drugs in prisons, you would actually make the life of the Prison Service rather easier. Unfortunately, when a service of any kind—we have had this all the time with the NHS—is as badly stretched as the Prison Service, it has a hand-to-mouth existence. It is very important that the impact of this additional responsibility is looked at carefully in the months following the introduction of these powers.
We will investigate a lot of other issues in debating the next group of amendments, which emphasise the complexity of the situation now with drugs. However, the two amendments in this group draw out two important threads.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for introducing this group of amendments, which gives us the opportunity to discuss the stop and search powers and the resourcing of police, and to dip our first toe in the water on delegated powers.
We recognise that stop and search is a significant power and that it is essential that we use it appropriately and proportionately. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly recognised that the consultation on the use of stop and search for drones reported before Gatwick. Therefore, the powers in this Bill were included as a result of a significant amount of consultation after Gatwick to make sure that we got it right. Since that consultation concluded, officials have had various meetings with stakeholders to discuss the consultation response both within and outside government. Those consulted include the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice and BEIS, as well as the National Police Chiefs’ Council and CT Policing. The Department for Transport has also met groups such as BALPA and the Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers, who in general support the police powers proposed in the Bill.
It is important that the powers be used only where proportionate, so there are a number of limits in the Bill. In the first instance, a constable must have grounds for suspecting that they will find an unmanned aircraft or something associated with an unmanned aircraft, such as a controller, and that the unmanned aircraft or article has been involved in the commission of one of the offences specified in the Bill. I shall send the schedule to noble Lords.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister referred to BALPA. Is she saying that BALPA has expressed no reservations whatever about the police powers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am not aware that BALPA has any reservations about the stop and search powers under discussion.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am afraid that I cannot recall exactly what BALPA’s reservations are—whether it has reservations about other police powers—but it was certainly one of the stakeholders that we spoke to regarding stop and search. As a consequence of the conversations that we had, we believe that introducing the powers in this Bill is proportionate and appropriate.
The more serious offences that could be liable to stop and search go towards the higher end of the penalty range and might involve transferring articles into or out of prisons et cetera. The Bill also sets out further conditions that need to be met. For offences that could be considered less serious, the conditions are more stringent. For example, in relation to Article 95 of the Air Navigation Order, flying a small unmanned surveillance aircraft too close to people, or Article 239(4), flying within a prohibited area, where it is more likely that somebody has committed an offence unintentionally —which again goes back to proportionality—stop and search can be used only where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the commission of an offence using an unmanned aircraft or associated article was for one of the following purposes: endangering an aircraft, which I think noble Lords would all agree should be top of the list; causing any person harm, harassment, alarm or distress; undermining security, good order or discipline in any prison or institution where people are lawfully detained; damaging property, or threatening national security. So, there are many offences where stop and search does not apply—for example, Article 94, including flying beyond visual line of sight without permission and flying commercially without permission. Here, stop and search would not be applicable.
We also recognise that it is very important to minimise the potential for discrimination in the exercise of police powers. In addition to the limitations written into the Bill, the conduct and recording of the Bill powers will be subject to Sections 2 and 3 of PACE, for which there is already guidance for police in Code A, the code of practice for police in the exercise of statutory powers of stop and search. Code A will apply to the Bill powers to ensure that they are being exercised appropriately.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her response to the amendments on which I and others have spoken. I will of course withdraw my amendment, but am not entirely convinced on her point about police resources. I asked some fairly specific questions about the percentage of police officers who would be required to have the training; I still do not know whether it is envisaged that all police officers will have this knowledge or whether it will be a much smaller grouping. I also asked about the tactical advisers; I suspect on that one it will be a case of waiting to see what happens—whether the Government’s view of the extent to which it will involve an additional responsibility or duty on the police materialises or whether it will prove somewhat greater than the Government anticipated. But for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rosser
I have written down an item about Schedule 10 and I will speak in particular to paragraph 6 of Schedule 10, which allows for supplementary provision to be made by regulations with respect to fixed penalty notices, including to the extent of amending or repealing provisions by an Act of Parliament. Paragraph 6(1)(b) of Schedule 10 also states that the Secretary of State may by regulations make
“provision about the consequences of providing false statements in connection with fixed penalty notices, including provision creating criminal offences.”
In their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Government’s justification for this power to create criminal offences through regulations, which cannot be subject to amendment, appears to be at least in part that there is a precedent in Section 54 of the Space Industry Act 2018. That Act was in essence a skeleton Act, which the Government told us was needed on the statute book before it could be properly fleshed out—hence so much being left to subsequent regulations—to provide assurance or comfort to the emerging UK space industry that the Government were prepared to give it the legislative backing and certainty it required. I suggest that the same consideration hardly applies here in relation to fixed penalty notices and the creation of criminal offences.
The Government say that the powers in paragraph 6(1)(b) to create criminal offences are needed to ensure that provision can be made for the consequences of providing full statements in connection with fixed penalty notices. But what kind of criminal offences are we talking about which are apparently so unique that the Government cannot formulate them now and put them in the Bill? Alternatively, since the Government refer only to the
“possibility of creating criminal offences in relation to false statements,”
why not first determine what those new criminal offences are that need creating and then include them in the next suitable Bill, where they can be fully debated and amended?
The Government clearly regard this Henry VIII power to be of some significance, since they state in their memorandum to the DPRR Committee that
“the regulations may create criminal offences and make provision about the process around appeals, and there is therefore the potential for significant impact to the public, police and judicial system.”
However, despite that potential for significant impact, the Government think it appropriate to use Henry VIII powers and regulations rather than primary legislation, which is invariably more fully debated and which, unlike regulations, can be amended. So can the Government give a somewhat fuller explanation of why having the powers to which I have referred in Schedule 10 is so crucial and, in their view, unavoidable, as opposed to them being powers, frankly, of administrative convenience to the Government?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for introducing a specific part of Schedule 10: notably, paragraph 6, which gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations for the provisions about fixed penalty notices, the form of and the information included, and the consequences of providing false statements in connection with fixed penalty notices, including the provision of creating criminal offences, as the noble Lord noted. It is important to note that within all this there is the affirmative resolution, and the consequences need to be proportionate and appropriate to the fixed penalty notices themselves. So proportionality will certainly come into this.
Should the regulations be used in future, the key consideration will be whether they are proportionate. The noble Lord mentioned that the consequences could be put in other legislation, but there could be no other suitable legislation coming down the track. As he noted, there is precedent for making regulations in the manner set out in the Bill. This would be a perfectly reasonable way to provide the flexibility that the Government need in this area as the entire sector develops. We need the flexibility not only for the information required in fixed penalty notices; it must therefore be the case that the consequences of providing false statements in relation to fixed penalty notices must also be needed. That is why we have taken this power in the Bill.
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able not to oppose the schedule.
Baroness Randerson
“Review of existing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the protections surrounding unmanned aircraft in existing legislation, and whether those protections are sufficient.(2) The review should make reference to, but is not limited to—(a) whether existing privacy legislation is sufficient to cover threats posed to personal privacy by unmanned aircraft;(b) the merits of introducing mandatory remote identification;(c) the merits of introducing mandatory geo-fencing;(d) whether existing criminal law sufficiently protects against—(i) the modification of unmanned aircraft; and(ii) the weaponisation of unmanned aircraft;(e) whether there should be a minimum age for the purchase and operation of unmanned aircraft.(3) The review must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation in light of its findings.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to undertake a review of existing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft, and to recommend whether further legislation is required to ensure sufficient protections.
Baroness Randerson
My Lord, when I became Lords Transport spokesman in 2015, the first major piece of work I participated in related to drones. Work had already been done on that by one of the European Union sub-committees and a good report published. Then, and ever since, I have urged the Government to grasp this issue. Despite many opportunities, they have refused stubbornly to do so. They have refused to be hurried. Above all, they have refused to look ahead at rapidly developing technology.
Since 2015, a range of Ministers has been sitting opposite us answering on transport issues, but from one after another we have heard the phrase, “We lead the world in drone technology.” They have failed to grasp that if you are going to lead the world in the technology, you need to lead it in its regulation too. In preparation for today, I looked again at briefings we had a couple of years ago on legislation on drones. Then, a couple of weeks ago, we received a briefing from DJI, a leading UK drone manufacturer, which specified what its drones can now do. I compared that with what we were told drones could do a couple of years ago. In that short period of time, there has been a leap in technological capability. Here we have a Bill to update the law, yet the government response is limited to falling back on a few long-established police powers.
I cannot emphasise enough that that is a huge missed legislative opportunity. The Government should be looking at what drones can do now and indeed be anticipating what they will be able to do in a few months’ time, not even in a few years’ time, because it takes that long to get legislation on to the statute book and in that time there will be another step forward in drone technology. I argue that we owe it to pilots and passengers, whose safety is at risk. We owe it to airport operators who, at great cost, have to deal with the threats from drones, and we owe it to drone manufacturers and users to provide the framework for safe drone usage. I take issue with what the Minister said earlier about being proportionate, not overreacting and so on. Rather, drones need a good reputation. To achieve that, they need a good, modern and strong legal framework, which this Bill does not provide. Nothing could be worse for the drone manufacturing industry and for our technological base in it than to suffer disasters associated with drones which happened as a result of the fact that we have inadequate legislation.
Modern, adequate legislation does not have to be draconian, it just has to look at the ways in which drones operate and to take them into account. Amendment 31 is designed to open up the discussion and to encourage the Minister to go back to her department and press for firm measures to be incorporated in the Bill on Report. We are asking for a review, which is the very least that is needed. I would prefer some action now. I would like a much tighter legal framework, but to help the Minister I have specified some of the key issues that those in the industry— whether BALPA representing pilots, those in the drone manufacturing industry or those in the aviation industry—believe need to be addressed urgently.
For example, a recent opinion poll showed that 60% of people are concerned about the privacy implications of drones. Earlier, the noble Viscount referred to the issue of drones being flown over gardens, and there are other issues associated with the use of drones being used to spy on neighbours in a very unpleasant manner. Is the current legislation comprehensive enough to deal with the invasion of privacy implications of drone use? I doubt it.
The issue of the minimum age also needs to be addressed. In the wrong hands, a drone can bring down a plane, so it is only sensible to set a minimum age for flying them. They are not children’s toys, although they are often bought as such by badly informed parents. Last Christmas I noticed that one or two retailers stated that they were ceasing to sell drones because they realised the level of responsibility that goes with them.
The technology now exists for the remote identification of drones, something the Minister referred to earlier, but setting that aside, as some would have it and some would not, all should now have remote identification. It is reasonable to expect that it should always be switched on. It was explained to me that it should work like registering a car. I am registered as a driver and my car is registered as my property. If I drive badly, the police can take note of that, take the number plate, trace the car to me and rightly approach me to ask whether I was driving that car on that day and, if not, who was.
The same principle should apply with drones. Remote identification is an inexpensive way for the police and airport authorities to monitor drone usage. If a drone is flying too low or too close to an airfield and it has remote ID, the authorities can identify who owns it, find the owner and stop it flying there. If the drone’s ID is switched off, they know immediately that the incident is much more serious. They know that it is not a case of a youngster, or even a middle-aged person, behaving carelessly, but someone is deliberately intending to avoid being caught, leading to a potentially serious incident.
It should be an offence to switch off the remote identification of drones. There must of course be exceptions, which should be allowed as part of a regular process by the CAA. There are organisations and people who have very good reasons not to obey this identification process. Obviously, it should also be an offence to modify or to weaponise—that is, to arm—a drone. I do not know whether the current legislation would cover that. It was put to me that it would not.
Geofencing also needs to be widely rolled out. That would involve updating drone software regularly. It could be done with the annual registration process, just as with an electric or an automated vehicle in years to come, when software will need to be regularly updated. It also needs to be done for drones.
I have been talking about airports but all of this applies to prison authorities as well. If it were to be applied to drones through legislation at this time, it would help prison authorities considerably, as well as assisting in the safety of airports. I beg to move.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s words were tempting in some ways because ever since drones first appeared, we have been way behind the game in dealing with their potential dangers. They should never have been made available for the general public to buy and should have required a licence from the very beginning. All those things should have been done early on. So there is a temptation to support the noble Baroness in what she said, but when you think about it a little more, you realise that if we legislated in the way she asks for we would almost certainly be behind the game again. It is better that we leave things as they are drafted in the Bill so that we can take action much more easily in those circumstances when we see what is happening.
We cannot go back and undo those mistakes made at the very beginning because most people thought that they were toys. I remember that I in particular warned against the dangers of them being used, for example, as weapons launched at this building from a boat going up or down the river outside this place on to the Terraces, where people sit outside. That danger is still there. We need, all the time, to make sure that our powers are as flexible as possible—in the Bill now, I believe that they are—to deal with those threats as they arise.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I only wish that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, had been here during earlier proceedings on the Bill because we dealt with the issues that he referred to.
I wonder whether Ministers have considered the 22nd report of the Commons Select Committee, entitled Commercial and Recreational Drone Use in the UK, and its recommendation. I want to read that recommendation out because it is at the heart of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The committee said that they are
“concerned that there are differing accounts within the aviation community about the likely severity of damage of a drone collision with an airplane. Furthermore, there are differing accounts of the number of near misses and the reliability of airprox reports has been disputed. The Committee is concerned that there is no agreed position on the likely consequences of a drone-airplane impact. The Government should complete a substantive risk assessment”—
exactly what the noble Baroness said—
“by the end of 2020.”
That is the end of this year. The report went on:
“If it is not possible to publish the result of this assessment due to security concerns, the Government must provide this Committee with evidential assurances that this work has been done.”
Well, it has not been done. The Select Committee recommendation has been ignored.
To go back further in the committee’s evidence, the CAA said that
“It is considered unlikely that a small drone would cause significant damage to a modern turbo-fan jet engine”.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will be interested in what the report then states because he was a BALPA airline pilot, if I recall correctly:
“Captain Tim Pottage, representing BALPA, voiced caution about the CAA’s position. Captain Pottage said that he was … ‘Concerned that the CAA had that view. There has been no testing of a drone against a large commercial high bypass jet engine—none at all. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it would cause a catastrophic failure, causing a blade to shed and not to be contained within the engine cell.’”
That is what is worrying us in the House. We will have a lot of people telling us not to worry about it and that it will not happen, but if it does happen, who will be held to blame? I believe that it will be this Government.
Viscount Goschen
My Lords, the House should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for introducing her amendment and enabling a discussion about, essentially, attempting to future-proof this legislation, which is extremely difficult to do.
I am afraid that I follow my noble friend Lord Tebbit’s analysis of the situation. We have to draw the line somewhere. It is important to move ahead with the legislation more or less as drafted—that is, as it appears before the Committee. It is difficult to legislate for future technical solutions, such as geofencing and reliable, low-cost, low-weight but high-power transponders that would have to be developed to be included in every single drone. Lightweight transponders exist at the moment—light enough to be put into gliders, for example—but they have relatively high power requirements. There is also the requirement for them to have very high integrity. If these drones are carrying a transponder and giving false information because the transponder costs £5, for example, air traffic control could be disrupted perhaps worse than by the original offence relating to where the device is being flown.
While I welcome the debate that the noble Baroness has facilitated through her amendment, I am sympathetic with my noble friend the Minister in trying to produce legislation that, as far as technologically we can, tackles the situation as it prevails at the moment while attempting to future-proof—often through the use of Henry VIII powers, which was the subject of the previous debate on Schedule 10. We need that flexibility. Some compromise is required to achieve that, and I suggest that that compromise is the use of delegated powers. It seems entirely clear that we will have to revisit this in the not too distant future, even after this Bill becomes law.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this amendment. Even taking on board the reservations that two of my noble friends on this side have expressed, proposed new subsection (1)—a continual review each six months—certainly ought to be incorporated somewhere in this Bill. I do not know whether this is the right place, but that is for the Minister—not to respond to tonight, but certainly to take on board and come back to us on Report.
I see absolutely nothing wrong in having a minimum age. For heaven’s sake, it was done for motorcycles and other vehicles on the highway, and this is no different—it just happens to be in the air—so it seems absolutely right to have a minimum age.
I have worked with my noble friend on the Opposition Benches on many things. Having flown light aircraft in Pakistan and Canada and in the Royal Air Force, I am deeply worried that something will happen. I see a responsibility to say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I do not think has had the privilege of doing either of those things, that there needs to be forestalling of a potential huge accident. I very much hope that the department takes that on board in this legislation.
Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am not without sympathy for the thoughts behind the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, but there are some important complications, which were referred to by my noble friends Lord Tebbit and Lord Goschen. For example, electronic identification for each and every drone would be a considerable undertaking. It may in the end prove necessary, but it is not straightforward.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, unnecessary conflict has developed in this debate. I declare that I am the vice-president of BALPA, whose position, broadly speaking, is to support this Bill as far as it goes and strengthen it where we can, but also to recognise that there will be subsequent information and knowledge, and that regulation will be required as the impact of the technology changes. The noble Baroness’s amendment—building into this legislation the fact that we continuously review the specifics that she outlines, but also any other changes in technology—is the most sensible way to do it. We are not going to complete in the next few days a Bill that will last very long in its totality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, with whom I sat on the same committee, knows that five years ago the technology was very different. Some of the concerns were the same; some have been overcome. Hopefully, we can develop a situation in which we have a continuous review, but the request that that should be built into this Bill does not seem to me unreasonable. For the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours spelled out, and as I spoke about at Second Reading, we already know about the lack of testing on the effect of drones going into jet engines. We need that testing before we can effectively legislate. It is a potentially serious issue. We need a next stage built into the legislation. If the noble Baroness’s amendment is not accepted in total, I hope that its spirit will be taken on board by the Government.
Lord Rosser
My Amendment 35 in this group is on much the same theme as the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, except that it calls for the Secretary of State to,
“prepare a strategy for reviewing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft.”
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, referring to the rate at which technology surrounding drones has developed, said:
“It is possible that this legislation already falls behind recent developments. It seems to ignore the dangers that could arise from drones that fly beyond lines of sight. Ultimately, this legislation must be prepared to deal with the drone technology of the future”.—[Official Report, 27/1/20; col. 1270.]
My noble friend Lord Whitty referred at Second Reading to the Select Committee report from 2015 on drones—or, as I think they were known then, remotely piloted aircraft systems—and said that a range of issues raised in the report had “not been fully addressed” and were not really addressed in the Bill. Some related to the safety of other users in the air and on the ground, but there were also issues of insurance, licensing, privacy and liability and the question of how far the multiple operation of drones by one programme and one operator is compatible with our current regulations. He also spoke about changes in the air traffic control regulations to ensure adequate separation; strengthening the enforcement and checking system; removing built-in safety features from drones; the deliberate weaponisation of drones; and licensing of individual machines. The Airport Operators Association has called for mandatory geofencing software in drones and the mandatory identification of drones to help airports to identify genuine threats to safety.
I am sure that the Government recognise the need to keep reviewing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft. The incident at Gatwick Airport in December 2018 and other incidents and the subsequent emergence of the Bill suggest that someone or somebody had not kept their eye fully on the ball regarding the relevance of legislation by ensuring legislation continues to reflect current realities and technological developments. It is not unreasonable to suggest that a strategy should be drawn up for reviewing legislation to ensure that that does not happen again. At Second Reading, the Minister, speaking for the Government, said:
“Of course, the world of drones and airspace change never stops, so we will continue to review the legislation to ensure it remains fit for purpose, particularly for drones.”—[Official Report, 27/1/20; col. 1292.]
As I said, I am not sure that that has been the case in the light of the Gatwick incident in the sense of updating the legislation in time.
Will the Government’s strategy for reviewing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft be conducted in a piecemeal manner, responding to problems and issues as they come to light, or will we have a comprehensive review of all aspects of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft, as some have called for? The Airport Operators Association says in its briefing—which I am sure a number of noble Lords will have received—on Part 3 of the Bill on unmanned aircraft: “We are, in addition, disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to include other elements called for by the majority of the industry and achieve one comprehensive piece of legislation on drone safety and usage.”
The piecemeal approach would appear to be in vogue at the moment. Even with this Bill, the Government have taken the line—and it has been repeated today—that this is about police enforcement powers and that, in their view, it is inappropriate to use this Bill for further unmanned aircraft regulation. There are also the Henry VIII powers in the Bill, which we have discussed. They provide for the creation of new offences by the Secretary of State, by regulation on an ad hoc basis, and for the addition of offences by the Secretary of State by regulations on an ad hoc basis. That again suggests a piecemeal approach by the Government to their continuous review of the legislation on unmanned aircraft to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. If legislation affecting unmanned aircraft is reviewed on a piecemeal basis, then when a problem or deficiency is exposed, we risk the equivalent of a second Gatwick incident.
This amendment calls for a strategy for reviewing legislation relating to unmanned aircraft—a strategy which, based on the evidence, frankly, is needed—and for that strategy to be prepared by the Secretary of State. I await the Government’s response.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very interesting debate. It has been more wide-ranging than I anticipated.
The Government are listening to everybody contributing to this debate—within this Chamber and beyond—about what they should be doing. Something needs to be done, but there is no silver bullet. Standing here now, I can absolutely say that there is no magic bullet, no single solution. We cannot legislate our way out of the issue facing us unless we completely ban drones. There was mention that perhaps we should have had a registration system at the outset, but we have had model aircraft for years. They have not had anything, and they too have been involved in incursions over airports. We cannot lull ourselves into a false sense of security. We cannot say that the Government are not doing enough, that something must be done and that this is all so terrible, because what in this Bill would have prevented Gatwick, for example?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Potentially, a transponder, but we knew where the drones were. We could see them flashing above the runway. What could we do about it? All the legislation in the world could not have done anything about that. It comes down to technology, and the work that we are doing with the CPNI to develop the counter-UAV technology. That is what we need to spend money on, and we intend to. The legislation before us is a series of things that have already been put in place under the air navigation order. The noble Baroness may criticise the approach as piecemeal, but essentially, it is keeping up with technology.
Baroness Randerson
Does the Minister accept that Gatwick was an outlier in a range of events, and that it would have been caught by noticing that, “They’ve switched off their electronic ID, so we have a real problem here”? That would not have caught the drones but it would have alerted the authorities. Does she accept that most of these potentially dangerous incursions are accidental or careless, and that having some form of compulsory electronic ID would enable the authorities to act quickly and easily? We are not talking about new technology that is way over the horizon. It is here now.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness makes a couple of very interesting points, including that in many cases, people do not intend to commit these offences and if given a slap on the wrist and a fixed-penalty notice, they probably would not do it again. When the noble Baroness asked if I wanted to make an intervention, I was listening intently because I want to hear ideas about what we should be doing that we have not done already, and where the deficiencies are.
Let me address some of the ideas of noble Lords; others we will take away and look at further. My noble friend Lord Naseby said that there must be a minimum age. There is a minimum age: you must be over 18 to operate a drone. You must also pass a competency test to be a remote pilot, but the operator of the drone is the person responsible. I think we can agree that the minimum age issue has been dealt with.
On remote ID and electronic conspicuity, the delegated Act is in UK law. The noble Baroness suggested demanding that every drone has electronic conspicuity. We do not want to favour one drone manufacturer over another. We want to ensure that the technology we receive can develop naturally. It was agreed among EU members that a three-year transition period would be appropriate, but electronic conspicuity is in British law. It will be coming over the transition period, as we agreed with our colleagues in the EU.
The noble Baroness also asked why the process is not like car registration. It already is. One must register a drone, and it has a number on it, like a car number plate. So we already have registration and competency testing; these things are already part of UK law. I am therefore still looking for what it is we should be doing better. Geo-awareness and geo-fencing, like electronic conspicuity, are in the EU delegated Act, so they are in UK law.
Forgive me—I cannot recall which noble Lord mentioned BVLOS, but we already have drones that can fly beyond the visual line of sight. It is illegal to do so; that is already within our legislation. It cannot be done without permission.
I am slightly at a loss as to where we can take this further. Noble Lords mentioned areas that stray into other parts of the law, but on privacy, for example, which the Government take extremely seriously, we want to stop invasions of people’s privacy, but we consider the existing legislation sufficient. Article 95 of the air navigation order specifies that equipment must not be flown over or within 150 metres of a congested areas or an organised open area assembly of more than 1,000 people, within 50 metres of any third person, or within 30 metres during take-off and landing. The 50-metre limit also applies to structures, including houses. Capturing an image from over 50 metres away is possible, I suppose, but then the GDPR regulations and the Data Protection Act come in to protect people’s privacy. Other criminal legislation which noble Lords considered more recently around voyeurism includes the Sexual Offences Act 2003. So, there is existing legislation which protects privacy. Again, I am happy to listen to opinions on where the legislation is deficient and how it specifically relates to drones, rather than just general privacy information.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Perhaps I can answer the Minister’s question. She asked what can be done. Very simply—if she has listened to the debate she will know—confiscate any drone that enters one of these zones.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am aware that that is the noble Lord’s position, but I am not sure that evidence exists that if confiscation becomes part of the Bill, it automatically means that nothing bad will ever happen to drones—or that it will make any difference at all—given that the penalties are already far higher than the cost of a drone.
Lord Craig of Radley
I come back to the point that the purpose is its deterrent value. It would also have a public relations value. Rather than telling the owner of a drone that he or she may not fly it in a particular way, confiscation would have a deterrent value. This would encourage good behaviour and be a public relations exercise to show that the Government are taking seriously the possibility of a catastrophic accident if a drone were to hit a civilian airliner.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I agree with the noble and gallant Lord. The Government obviously take seriously the potential of a catastrophic accident. For those kinds of offences, the deterrent is far greater than having one’s drone taken away: it is a lengthy prison sentence and an unlimited fine. I remain unconvinced at this time that the confiscation or forfeiture of a drone is an additional means of deterrent.
I am trying to think of an example of an item being forfeited purely to provide that kind of deterrent effect. I will ask my officials to look at the issue and perhaps that will produce more convincing evidence.
Viscount Goschen
One can think of the example of the seizure and destruction of untaxed vehicles by public authorities. The specific deterrent is the loss of the vehicle in addition to any financial penalty.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for that good example. I am not against this; I just wonder what the evidence is. I shall ask my officials to look for more examples and to see whether it is likely to be proportionate and a deterrent, and whether the existing penalty system is sufficient to deter not only minor offences but the most serious.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Viscount referred to seizure as against confiscation. Perhaps we should simply substitute confiscation for seizure.
Lord Naseby
Perhaps I may be of help. It was pointed out to me that if I did not re-licence my shotgun within the statutory time limit I was given, the gun would be taken away from my premises. I do not know whether that would be for ever, but it would certainly be taken away for a long time.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for his additional data, to be added to the information I will be collecting before too long.
Lord Rosser
It is a sobering thought that, as I understand it, the Government have said that no legislation could prevent what happened at Gatwick happening again or even reduce its likelihood. That seems to be the Government’s stance. I apologise for my ignorance in advance, but can the Minister confirm that there is a report into the incident at Gatwick Airport in December 2018, and can it be made available?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
What I said about Gatwick is that there is no silver bullet; there was not one piece of legislation that would have stopped Gatwick.
Lord Craig of Radley
As a result of what happened at Gatwick, steps have been taken. So, it is not a case of just legislation stopping or not stopping it. Additional measures have been taken which make it less likely that the problems at Gatwick will arise again. At least, I hope that is the intention of the steps that have been taken.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble and gallant Lord is right; a number of steps have been taken. On the legislative side, we have looked carefully at what we can include. One of the steps taken as a result of Gatwick is that we asked CPNI to step up its work on counter-UAV technology and it has been carrying out tests. It did a call-out to industry; industry sent it whatever it had in detect, track and identify technology; and CPNI has been methodically working its way through it to see whether the technology works. Some of it does not.
We are looking carefully at providing a catalogue for airports to say to them, “This is the technology that works. We at CPNI, since Gatwick, have checked this technology and it works.” Those are the kinds of things we have been doing.
Baroness Randerson
Looking at what would make us safer, when the Minister has had the opportunity to read the record, will she write to us to clarify the position? I believe she said to us categorically that you have to be 18 to operate a drone. The CAA has pages and pages about how to register as the flyer of a drone if you are under 13. An operator of a drone has to be 18-plus, but it is quite clear that an operator of a drone is not a flyer. The CAA states that you are an operator if
“you’re the adult responsible for an under 18 who owns a drone”—
under-18s cannot just fly a drone or a model aircraft, they can own them too—
“you’re responsible for a drone that someone else will fly”
or
“you already have a flyer ID, or an exemption, and you only need an operator ID at the moment.”
It is very lax. The point I am making is that there are things the Government can do—with all due respect, my amendment asks only for a review—without breaking new ground. The idea of registration is pretty straightforward and well established in other situations.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has just repeated back to me what I have already said. There is a registration system. It is in existence and it is very straightforward. There are two types of people who can use the registration system. The first is a person who is over 18 and is the operator of the drone. That person is responsible. The second person might be, but does not have to be, a remote pilot. Why did we do this? Why does the remote pilot thing exist? It is to make sure that people aged under 18 can fly drones. How are we going to get our young people interested in aviation and in flying model aircraft? This is not just about drones.
Sometimes I am very struck. The Liberal Democrats sometimes come across as being very illiberal and on other points they come across as being very liberal indeed. I am slightly confused because the noble Baroness has literally just said back to me what I said to her earlier: that is already in place. The operator of a drone is the person who is responsible for it. That person has to register that drone, just like a car, with the CAA. I do not want to stop young people who are competent. Every young person has to take the test. I took the test; they have to take the test. At that point, they can fly a drone.
I do not want to prolong the discussion today, but perhaps afterwards the noble Baroness will describe to me exactly what she thinks is missing from that system, because it comes from the EU regulations. I believe the Liberal Democrats like the EU. Those are the EU regulations. They are agreed with the EU and therefore they are consistent across Europe. They make sure that there is responsibility for the drone and that young people can fly if somebody else is responsible. The noble Baroness shakes her head and says no, but I really do not want to detain the Committee any longer on something which is not wholly relevant to this amendment. We can perhaps discuss it in later groups.
I believe that I have gone into some of the details, and I hope I have been able to demonstrate that we are listening. We want to hear about what specifically we can do to make things better. The noble Baroness mentioned DJI. We, too, have been in touch with DJI and I believe it has sent a briefing to several noble Lords. It is very clear that the Bill should remain a means of ensuring safety and compliance with existing regulation because that regulation includes the EU’s implementing and delegated regulations, which UK officials helped shape. These have come into force and are in UK law.
The Government will continue to review the effectiveness of all the legislation on unmanned aircraft. It is critical to us. We will always listen to new ideas from noble Lords and stakeholders. It is important.
The Science and Technology Committee’s report Commercial and Recreational Drone Use in the UK was mentioned. I note for the record that my department stands ready to provide a response to the report—we have not yet responded—which will include references to the applicability of legislation. We will do that once the committee is reappointed.
On the basis of that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I emphasise that my amendment simply asks for a review of the current situation. While the debate has been going on, I have looked through the specifications of modern drones; they include geofencing, altitude limits, return to home, sensor-avoid technology and ADSB in all drones weighing more than 250 grams. There are various ways of controlling them, including not just an app or traditional remote controllers but even hand gestures. We are at a very important point in the development of drones.
On the analogy with registering a car, which I initiated and the Minister took me up on, looking through the CAA’s pages there does not appear to be a requirement for the registered operator to be present when a drone is flown by a child. With all due respect, larger drones, as the noble Lord said earlier, are not toys and have a huge potential impact. I think the Government are guilty of some complacency; they are certainly guilty of being behind the curve. A review would provide a good opportunity for them to come up to speed. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“Additional requirements for drones
(1) The Air Navigation Order 2016 (S.I. 2016/765) is amended as follows.(2) After article 94(5) insert—“(6) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft unless its geo-fencing equipment is in operation and up-to-date.(7) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft unless it is remotely identifiable and this identifier is linked to the person in charge through the Drone and Model Aircraft Registration and Education Service.(8) The requirements for geo-fencing equipment and remote identification do not apply to a person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft with a permission granted by the CAA to operate without these restrictions.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places additional requirements on drones, so that they must have up-to-date geo-fencing equipment and mandatory remote identification.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, Amendment 32 follows similar lines to Amendment 31 but is much more specific. It amends the Air Navigation Order 2016 to introduce an obligation for geofencing equipment to be up to date and working. It provides that persons in charge who have electronic identification must not switch it off, and must have that identification on a register linked to their name. Currently, we still have drone users without registered drones. As I said earlier, there are good reasons why some people do not, and should not, have to register; the amendment allows for exceptions.
Basically, I have selected some simple steps that can be taken now. They do not anticipate future technological developments; they deal with what exists now. I accept that one might debate many things about how we control and use drones in the most sensible way, but these are simple, basic improvements to the control of drones by government legislation which benefit the whole of society, as I stated in my previous amendment. I do not wish to repeat what I said then. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I have an almost identical amendment to that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I am sure that nobody wishes to hear me deliver virtually the same speech as the one delivered by the noble Baroness. I support what she has said and hope we will find that the Government do too.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am very pleased that this group came immediately after the previous one because I too will probably be saying pretty much what I said before. Obviously, geo-awareness and electronic conspicuity are important parts of the delegated regulation. Even though the noble Baroness would perhaps like these to be introduced sooner, I am sure she would accept that, while we are in our transition period, we have to follow EU law. The two items identified in this amendment are already in UK law; there is a three-year transition period in which they will come into effect. The noble Baroness mentioned that new drones can be purchased with all these things. There are people in the model aircraft community who will be very quick to write to all noble Lords to tell them why the transition period of three years is required. I have been at the receiving end of one their campaigns; it involves a lot of letters.
There are many reasons for the three-year transition period. While we were a member of the EU we could not change it, as the noble Baroness, being a Liberal Democrat, well knows. Those two requirements are already there so, from the point of view of the amendments, we can put them to one side. I have been through the registration issue several times: there is an operator and there is a remote pilot; the remote pilot is under the responsibility of the operator and can be under 18. It is nobody’s interest to stop people under 18—a 16 year-old, for example—flying these vehicles.
On remote identification, once electronic conspicuity is ubiquitous, we will be able to link the identifier to the registration system. At the moment, there is literally a physical number on a drone; that will change over to electronic conspicuity once the transition period is over. The model aircraft people will have put electronic conspicuity into all their aircraft by then and the entire system should be ready to go. I hope that, given this explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Whitty
“Unmanned aircraft safety features
After article 94(5) of the Air Navigation Order 2016 (S.I. 2016/765) insert— “( ) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft if its inbuilt safety features are inoperable or have been disabled.””Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide that a drone should not be flown if its inbuilt safety features, such as geo-fencing, lights, transponder etc, are broken or have been deliberately disabled.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, in moving Amendment 33A, I will speak also to Amendments 33B and 33C in this group. I declared earlier that I am vice-president of BALPA. It will come as no great surprise that these amendments emanate largely from BALPA. It supports the general direction of the Bill and wishes to see it enacted. It recognises that there are additional issues that will have to be addressed by the Government subsequently, but in the immediate term some of the enforcement measures, and the description of what needs to be enforced, can be clearer and more effective, and these three amendments pick out three of those. They do so in a way that does not leave to secondary legislation a description or an invention of another criminal offence. They would put it in primary legislation in the context of this Bill and of the various Acts, such as the Air Navigation Order and the police powers Acts, that already exist.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I offer my apologies as I was not able to be here for Second Reading, which I know traditionally one is before one speaks. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register, which lists me as the president of BALPA, an office that I am very pleased to fulfil.
I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. These are basically safety amendments. We are looking for a positive statement from the Government, which I am sure will be forthcoming. Amendment 33A, as the noble Lord has said, is about the safety features being inoperable. We are particularly concerned if they are disabled deliberately. Of course, sometimes they are inoperable because they just do not work but on other occasions they can be deliberately disabled, and clearly that should not be allowed.
Amendment 33B says a single person can operate only a single drone at any one time. That we see as a matter of basic safety, and we hope it will find favour. On Amendment 33C, as the noble Lord has said, regulations concerning drugs and alcohol are fairly common in industry and in all these situations. I hope the Minister will feel able to give a positive response to the amendments and read into the record the Government’s support for at least the intention of what we are seeking to do.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I too support the thrust of these three amendments. On the first of them I would need to be quite clear, though, whether the requirements of particular safety features are a legal requirement. If they are not, I believe that they should be; but I assume that they are, which is why they are mentioned in this way. I also note in passing that the phrase
“in charge of a small unmanned aircraft”
is used. We have been talking about various ways in which those aircraft are managed. Is there somebody controlling them or are they being operated? For the sake of clarity, if we are going to use a word such as “controlling”—or any other word—it should be part of the legislation to define what is meant by the phrase or phrases that are used in it.
The amendment regarding one single unmanned aircraft could be restrictive but, to start with, that is perhaps the right way to go—not to immediately talk about allowing two or more, or even a swarm, of small unmanned aircraft to be flown. In passing, if such an arrangement were allowed would the collective weight of the swarm be taken into account, rather than just the weight of an item within that swarm? That could affect it, bearing in mind the weight limitations that are already in legislation.
On the point of the third amendment, alcohol, I know that the Minister talked about alcohol in the letter that she wrote. She said that if it were necessary, it would be a matter for an air navigation order because alcohol and drugs are of such significance in the safety of aviation. The Explanatory Notes refer to anybody fulfilling an aviation function, but surely the operator or controller—the man, woman or child in charge of a small, unmanned aircraft—is performing an aviation function. The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 seems a very appropriate place for alcohol and drugs to be covered, rather than leaving it to an air navigation order.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I add my support for these amendments, particularly Amendment 33C. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister needs to go no further than to look at the provisions and requirements in the armed services for those who are engaged in the use of drones. Although the rules here will presumably apply to civilians, those provisions are sensible in regard to the questions of alcohol and drugs, and of control. Maybe she could find the precedent that she needs if she looks at the service agreements for those involved with operating drones in the services.
Viscount Goschen
My Lords, I certainly support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, seeks to achieve with his series of amendments but there are perhaps dangers in them as well, considering how these aircraft might be utilised in the future. We are back to the central difficulty with the Bill: how to future-proof it. There could be circumstances in the future where a system of small, unmanned aerial vehicles is used for inspecting pipelines, patrolling beaches—looking for those who are smuggling or bringing in illegal immigrants—or monitoring weather conditions. All sorts of things could require a system of small UAs to be operated. It is entirely conceivable and technologically possible that they could be operated at the moment by computer systems: by algorithms with a single, nominated person in charge of a system of multiple vehicles. That might be much safer than having someone with little experience looking out of the window and trying to control a single aircraft. While I sympathise with the thrust of the amendments, when my noble friend comes to her response perhaps she might care to address that point. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, might think about it as well.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I support these amendments. There is a contradiction at the heart of all the discussion here. Where the Minister sees youngsters having fun and flying a modern version of a model aircraft, others across the House see drones as highly technologically advanced and hugely important to our economy. We see all sorts of aspects of safety and security for the country, as drones are already misused on a fairly wide scale in certain circles. The clue is in the name. The Government call them “small unmanned aircraft”—I would rather they had used “uncrewed aircraft” as going back to the concept of “manning”, which we got out of legislation some years ago, is rather depressing, but that is beside the point. The point here is that the Government are calling them “small unmanned aircraft” and, therefore, the rules associated with aircraft need to apply. That you might have had too much to drink or might be high is now considered totally unacceptable in respect of other functions, so the noble Lord is drawing attention to some basic, sensible rules about how drones should be used. That is not to be overly onerous, because one person’s risk is another’s terrible danger. We have to be sensible about the implications for safety in this field.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling these important safety amendments. I will take a moment to rebut the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who seems to imply that, for some reason, the Government do not care about safety. Continually her remarks seem to imply, “Well, we see the danger and the Government do not.” The Government do see the danger and are looking at all ways to mitigate it, while not crushing an industry that could be incredibly important to our nation and its future.
I shall address in detail the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, but I want to reassure him and noble friends on the Benches behind me that the Government feel that maintaining the highest standards of safety is a top priority, in relation to both manned and unmanned aircraft. That is why failing to meet requirements such as being reasonably satisfied that a flight can safely be made are already offences under the Air Navigation Order. More serious offences such as endangering the safety of an aircraft could also apply.
For example, Amendment 33A refers to “inbuilt safety features”. They are not necessarily defined, but I take it that we should talk about the thrust of the amendment rather than the detail. As has been covered several times today, the EU regulations being transposed into UK law cover much of what is covered by the noble Lord’s first amendment. The inbuilt safety features to which I think he is referring, such as electronic conspicuity, are within that. The noble Lord mentioned that they could not be turned off—indeed they cannot, because should they be turned off that would be illegal, as the devices would then not have electronic conspicuity. Under the regulations in place—we are in the transition period—those things would have to be on and functioning. Turning them off would not be an option, because that would then be illegal.
On being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, again, this is a really important area. Under the Air Navigation Order, for any remote pilot—that is, the person flying it rather than the person who takes responsibility for it or owns it—who flies a small unmanned aircraft without being reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made, perhaps because they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, there is a potential fine on conviction of up to £2,500. For further, more serious cases of unsafe flying, a pilot found guilty of recklessly or negligently causing an aircraft to endanger a property or person could be sentenced to up to two years in prison, which is quite a significant sentence for being over the limit.
However, I want to bring to noble Lords’ attention more specific regulation: that is, the implementing regulations. I have talked a lot today about delegated regulation today; there is also the implementing regulation, which is also coming from the EU. That states specifically that a remote pilot must not fly an unmanned aircraft when under the influence of psychoactive substances or alcohol.
Therefore, while I accept that the noble Lord’s intention is to make safety changes—and safety is our highest priority—I hope that I have been able to convince the noble Lord, at least for the time being, that we already cover the issues that he hoped to raise.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her support for the intention of the amendments. On the third amendment, on alcohol and drugs, whether or not the matter is covered by EU regulations in one sense, it is important that operators of drones understand that they should be under the same degree of discipline and self-control as pilots. It is therefore important that it appears in the same place in primary legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out that there is implementing legislation as well as the initial transposed EU legislation, which may make that clearer—but, even so, it is important that people on the ground do not regard themselves as being in a different category from those in control of aircraft in the air. I do not therefore completely accept that the matter is already covered.
On the first amendment, I say in reply to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, that, clearly, we are talking about the legally required safety regulations. Again, I hope that the Minister’s assurance that this matter is already covered stands up and I would welcome that being spelled out in letters that I could share with my colleagues. We will see whether we need to come back on that.
On single operatives, I accept, as I said in opening, that technology may get us to a situation where, for certain specific purposes, there is a single controller of a number of machines. I think that that should be dealt with as an exception, however, so that if an inspection company for a pipeline or a navigation, or for land management purposes, wants to use a single controller for several drones that are all doing the same task, or different aspects of the same task, that should probably be dealt with under an exceptional licence.
The principle should be that there should be one pilot for one machine, which is what this would require. The Minister did not comment in great detail on that: no doubt she can have another look at it. I am pleased that there seems to be general support for the principle, even if some of it may already be indirectly on the statute book through European legislation. I am very grateful, of course, for the Government’s endorsement of retaining that European legislation, in this field at least. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Strategy on managing risks from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a strategy for managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas.(2) The Secretary of State must publish the strategy no later than twelve months after this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must keep the strategy under review and revise it if appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must publish any revised strategy.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy on managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas.
Lord Rosser
This amendment is primarily to ascertain whether the Government believe that there is a risk arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas and, if they do, what their strategy is for dealing with it.
At Second Reading, I referred to the power, which we know is in the Bill, allowing a police officer to require a person to ground an unmanned aircraft if they have reasonable grounds for believing that the person is controlling the unmanned aircraft. I asked if there were powers available if the unmanned aircraft were being controlled by a person operating it from outside the United Kingdom or, indeed, from within our coastal waters. It would be helpful if the Government would say whether there is a strategy for managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas. Do they consider there is a risk from this source at all?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for raising this very important point. Certainly, the Government are well aware of a wide range of risks relating to unmanned aircraft and the fact that they may, in due course, be operated from overseas. That is one of the risks we are considering.
The Government published the UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy in October 2019. That strategy aims to safeguard the potential benefits of unmanned aircraft—because they can bring substantial benefits to the UK—by setting out our approach for countering the threat posed by their malicious or negligent use. I stress that this is very much work in progress. As all noble Lords have commented today, this technology moves very quickly, but the focus of this strategy is on keeping the UK public safe and protecting our critical national infrastructure, prisons and crowded places, irrespective of where the threat originates, in the UK or externally. It is therefore not necessary to prepare and publish an additional strategy specifically for managing a threat from overseas; it is something that is under consideration and was considered as we prepared the strategy.
As I have said many times today, the strategy recognises that there is no silver bullet: we must look at all the threats and at mitigating them all, both through the Bill before your Lordships today and through more practical elements, such as training the police, making sure that airports have access to the technology, as I explained earlier, and making sure that everybody using the technology or putting these powers in place has the training and guidance needed to respond effectively to the threat. I hope that, based on that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to the other amendment to Clause 20 in the names of Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe.
Lord Rosser
The two amendments in this group would require the Secretary of State to consult those involved in or affected by the incident at Gatwick Airport in December 2018 and to report on the consultation to both Houses of Parliament. What has driven these amendments more than anything else is that I am still not clear about the extent to which the Government went back to consult those who took part in the original consultation, to see whether they had anything useful to add in light of their experience of what happened at Gatwick in December 2018 that might have had relevance for what appears in the Bill we are considering today. As we know, two public consultations took place prior to this Bill and, indeed, prior to the incident in December 2018.
My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe referred to this at Second Reading, when he asked whether there had been any consultation on the legislation with those involved in the Gatwick incident. The Government’s response was less than explicit. They said only that there had been contact with the police force
“around Gatwick and … all over the country”
and meetings with
“other stakeholders to discuss these matters in general.”
The Government also said that
“a cross-government working group … looked at stop and search powers”
and
“agreed that the focus of the powers should not only be directed towards aviation and airports but be applicable to other areas such as prisons”.—[Official Report, 27/1/20; cols. 1291-2.]
In conclusion, they said they could not “delay any longer”. One might draw an inference from that comment that few of those organisations or individuals involved or affected by the Gatwick incident were consulted so that their potentially useful recent information or experience could be taken into consideration when determining the provisions that should be in this Bill or what provisions of a non-legislative function might be taken.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for giving me the opportunity to share as much information as I have with him. I will certainly share more if he is still yet to be convinced. As to whether there is a report on Gatwick—my apologies for not covering this earlier—I do not know but will investigate and return to it in a letter to him.
This amendment is on consultation. Ministers and officials from the Department for Transport and the Home Office have engaged with a range of stakeholders throughout the development of this Bill, including but not exclusively those listed in the amendment, and will continue to do so to make sure that our legislation remains fit for purpose, ensuring that lessons learned from those directly involved in responding to unmanned aircraft incidents, whether Gatwick or others, are considered and acted upon.
In the aftermath of the Gatwick incident, the Government worked with the police, the airport and other relevant organisations to learn lessons from the response. There were debriefs, workshops and future planning meetings so that we could look at and extrapolate from the event. Since Gatwick, the counter-drone community has moved forward at pace. We have a broader understanding of the threat posed by drones—hence our work with the CPNI on detecting, tracking and identifying equipment and how that might be deployed. We also continue to consult widely. For example, the UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy, our main focus following Gatwick and prior to this Bill, was published in October 2019 and followed ongoing engagement with both those on and not on the list because we wanted the widest input we could get.
I turn to some of the specific bodies: first, the police. For the first few months after the Gatwick incident, the counter-drone unit in the Home Office, which worked jointly with my department on this Bill, had an embed in its team from Sussex Police who was involved with Gatwick. That was extremely helpful. Since May 2019, a chief inspector from the National Police Chiefs’ Council has been embedded in this team with the national police lead for counter-drone systems, providing operational advice on how the provisions in the Bill will be put to use on the ground.
We see Gatwick Airport regularly and seek regular input from all airports because it is often the case that the larger airports will be able to react in a very different way to the smaller airports—something we have not really touched on today.
Baroness Randerson
At the time, a key issue revealed by Gatwick was the question of who was responsible for the operation of equipment. That has been clarified, as the Minister has indicated, in relation to the larger airports. Have the Government yet reached agreement with smaller airports, police services and the Army throughout Britain on who is responsible for ensuring that appropriate equipment will be deployed at smaller airports if such an incident happens there?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness has hit a particular nail on the head. That is why the catalogue of equipment is being developed by the CPNI. It is encouraging the leasing of equipment. Airports are responsible for safety and security within their boundaries, so they are being encouraged, where they feel it is appropriate, to lease appropriate equipment. Not all airports are the same, because of different sized sites and all sorts of different reasons. There is always ongoing engagement with the Ministry of Defence and the police. Every incident is dealt with on a case-by-case basis because, interestingly, no two incursions are the same. Some can be dealt with extremely easily and others require a different approach. We are well aware of the difference.
It is not just the different sizes of airports. There are various other bits of critical national infrastructure that fall under this entire threat picture. We are cognisant of that; it is part of the work on the strategy to make sure that we have the appropriately flexible response to make sure that we can deploy resources in the best way.
We have also been engaging with the Ministry of Defence. Along with the Home Office, my department works closely with the Ministry of Defence to share learning from its military work overseas and how best to work with the counter-drone industry. We work closely with the Civil Aviation Authority, including on the development of the drone code and drone registration scheme. Since Gatwick, the code has been reviewed and the drone registration scheme has come into existence.
We have regular meetings with BALPA, which is always a pleasure, and we are very interested in what it has to say. We also see a wide range of other bodies, either regularly or on an ad hoc basis, which includes the drone and counter-drone industries, regulatory bodies, airports and other critical national infrastructure sites, academia, and in particular international partners— this is not just a UK issue, and we speak to our international colleagues about it. I had a meeting with people from the States just a couple of weeks ago; they are facing the same problems, and we should not think that we are behind the curve, because we are certainly not.
I hope that, based on that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Thursday 21st January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 98-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (18 Jan 2021)
17:21 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 274 - Amendment 14 disagreed.
Lord Tunnicliffe
“General duty
The Secretary of State must exercise his or her functions under this Part in accordance with the general duty under section 1 of the Transport Act 2000.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 1
“would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.”
Amendment 10 is complementary to this amendment.
Amendment 2 would ensure that
“the Secretary of State must, before making a direction requiring a person to progress an airspace change, consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that the direction is necessary to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy and is reasonably practicable to comply with.”
Amendment 5 would ensure that, before making direction requiring a person to co-operate in an air- space change, the Secretary of State must consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that it is reasonably practical for the recipient of the direction to comply with it.
Amendment 8 would align the test for the variation of the direction with that applicable to making a direction. Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any direction to progress or co-operate in an airspace change proposal or variations or revocations of such direction made under this part. Amendment 11 would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy and related reports.
Amendment 13 concerns the report on general aviation. General aviation—this was the case in my day, which is now some decades ago, but I think it still persists—particularly light general aviation, is essentially where all our airline pilots are initially trained; that is how they come into the profession and so on. It is important that it is properly facilitated with respect to airspace changes and development. Fortunately, from conversations with the Minister, I believe that she shares that view, and I hope that, in her response, she will set out the Government’s support for general aviation and how its interests will be taken account of in the developing airspace debate. Hopefully, this will leave general aviation properly provided for and, almost as important, feeling that it has been properly consulted in the development.
In summary, this group of amendments seeks to clarify the role of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a role that is related to the CAA in various processes. It is not entirely clear who is in charge. The Bill as written gives the Secretary of State and the CAA the powers to achieve airspace change, but it is not clear who is actually responsible for getting it done. I would like to hear from the Minister that it is clear that the achievement of improvements and a new airspace capability is down to the Secretary of State, answerable to Parliament, and that his relationship with the CAA may be a partnership but he is the person in the partnership who is held accountable for execution and success.
The rest of the amendments are about requiring appropriate relationships between the parties and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the Bill, but I must use this opportunity to say that it is a bit of a mess. That is not surprising, because it has such a long history: the Bill itself is the result of attempts over several years to get legislation of this nature, and of course we had the Committee stage over a year ago.
Since then, there has been a dramatic reversal in the fortunes of the aviation industry—one that we would never have foreseen at the time when we spoke about this last. The impact of coronavirus has undermined all branches of aviation. In addition, of course, since we last spoke we have left the transition period following Brexit, but we are still at the point where we have to adhere to international norms and regulations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for tabling these amendments. I hope to set out the Government’s rationale for why we believe they are not necessary. I do not expect to speak at length on all groups, but for this group specifically it is important to put on record some commitments that the Government are willing to make and the rationale for them. I will return to the financial concerns of airports, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in the next group.
Amendments 1 and 10 seek to require the Secretary of State and the Civil Aviation Authority to act in accordance with the general duty set out in Sections 1 and 2 of the Transport Act 2000 respectively. These duties apply only to the provision of air traffic services and set out various matters to be considered in the exercise of the relevant functions. This includes the words
“to secure that licence holders will not find it unduly difficult to finance activities authorised by their licences”,
which in effect refers solely to NATS (En Route) plc, or NERL, as the UK’s only licence holder. I understand that NERL would like to ensure that the specific duty on the Secretary of State and the CAA is considered when directing NERL with an airspace change proposal, or ACP. It is already a requirement for the Secretary of State and the CAA to consider any licence conditions relating to NERL’s role in airspace modernisation through the lens of its statutory duties under the Transport Act 2000. As with any proposed recipient of a direction, if the licence holder has financial concerns in progressing an ACP then we expect that the CAA’s oversight team will seek to assist in finding potential solutions, such as sharing costs or expertise with other airport operators or assisting the proposed recipient in applying for funding from other sources.
The noble Lord’s amendment would extend the duties of the CAA and the Secretary of State in the Transport Act 2000 to cover other sponsors of airspace change; for example, airports. Relevant duties already apply to air navigation functions which the Secretary of State directs the CAA to carry out. Section 66 of the Transport Act 2000 enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the CAA regarding air navigation, and Section 70 sets out the CAA’s general duty in relation to its air navigation functions.
The amendment would be likely to cause a legislative conflict because, when determining whether to make directions using the powers in the Bill, the Secretary of State will consider advice from the CAA. This advice will take into account how critical the airspace change in question is in contributing to overall airspace modernisation, and the ability of the proposed recipient to progress the change, including the proposed recipient’s financial and other resources.
I turn to Amendments 2, 5, 8 and 9. The purpose of Amendments 2 and 5 is to require the Secretary of State to have regard to representations made by any person involved in airspace change before issuing a direction in order to be satisfied that the direction is necessary to deliver the CAA airspace strategy and that it is reasonably practicable to comply with. Amendments 8 and 9 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the same considerations applied if the Secretary of State varied a direction and that the reasons for the variation were published. I reassure noble Lords that appropriate conditions are already written into the Bill.
Clause 2(3) states that, before giving a direction, the Secretary of State must consult its proposed recipient. Clause 2(4) states that the Secretary of State may give a direction only if he or she is of the view that it
“will assist in the delivery of the CAA’s airspace strategy.”
Clause 3(2) states that the Secretary of State must consult both the proposed recipient of the direction and
“the person with whom co-operation would be directed.”
On Amendments 8 and 9, Clause 4 requires that directions, and any notice of variation or revocation, given by the Secretary of State under Clauses 2 and 3 are given in writing and are published. As with directions given under Clauses 2 or 3, any variation of a direction must assist in the delivery of the airspace strategy. We also expect the Secretary of State to consider how critical the ACP is and the ability of the sponsor to progress it. Before varying a direction, prior consultation with the relevant parties would be required. The same factors considered when giving a direction would be considered before varying or revoking a direction.
The requirement to consult before giving or varying a direction would inevitably require the Secretary of State to provide reasons for giving or varying a direction and to take advice from the CAA to ensure that the direction or its variation is required to assist in the delivery of the CAA’s strategy. We would expect the reasons for the direction, or variation or revocation, to be given and published alongside the direction or notice of variation or revocation, rather than in the direction or notice of variation itself, although the Bill is not prescriptive on that point.
In the unlikely event that a direction or variation were given where it was not reasonably practicable for the sponsor to carry it out, the sponsor would be able to use its right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, under Schedule 1, if the decision was wrong on one or more of the following grounds; namely, if it was based on an error of fact or was wrong in law, or an error was made in the exercise of a discretion.
Amendment 11 would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy. It would also require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a Statement setting out progress towards the implementation of the strategy within 12 months of the Bill being passed, and to lay further reports covering every subsequent 12-month period within six months of those periods ending.
The Civil Aviation Authority (Air Navigation) Directions 2017, issued to the CAA under Section 66(1) of the Transport Act 2000, directs the CAA to
“prepare and maintain a co-ordinated strategy and plan for the use of UK airspace for air navigation up to 2040, including for the modernisation of the use of such airspace.”
This places responsibility on the CAA for preparing the strategy, in consultation with the Secretary of State, and to report annually on the delivery of that strategy, which the CAA does through its airspace modernisation strategy—AMS. However, although the CAA and the DfT, as co-sponsors, are jointly responsible for the programme and for setting out the framework within which modernisation happens, airspace modernisation will ultimately be delivered by aviation stakeholders. Therefore, the legislation makes it clear that the CAA is required by the Secretary of State to prepare and maintain an airspace strategy and publish an annual report on it, and that the Secretary of State will hold the CAA accountable for this.
With regard to the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a Statement on the CAA’s progress against the strategy, as I mentioned previously, the CAA is already required to publish an annual report on progress against the AMS through the directions made by the Transport Secretary under the air navigation directions 2017. The latest report was published on 22 December 2020. It is worth noting that an amendment of this nature would widen the scope of the Bill, which provides the Secretary of State with specific powers with regard to airspace change proposals, not responsibility for the AMS as a whole, which is covered by Section 66 of the Transport Act 2000.
Finally, Amendment 13, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of Parts 1 and 2 on the general aviation—GA—sector. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his constructive engagement on this issue since Committee; his insight and experience have been most welcome.
GA is a key part of the aviation sector and is an important source of pilots, engineers and technicians, who, in turn, contribute to the success of commercial aviation, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The Government support GA, and we will continue to ensure that its needs are not overlooked at both local and national level when it comes to airspace modernisation.
However, I do not believe that it would benefit the AMS to place a reporting burden on the Secretary of State within 12 months of the Bill becoming an Act, for two reasons. First, Part 1 provides the Secretary of State with powers of direction relating to ACPs. Initially, we intend to use the powers in the Bill only on ACPs that are part of the master plan which is being developed by the Airspace Change Organising Group—ACOG—and formally accepted into the AMS. However, due to the impacts of Covid-19 on the modernisation programme —notably, the financial impacts on industry—the next iteration of the master plan will now not be delivered until later in 2021. That means it is very unlikely that within the 12-month period laid out in Amendment 13 a sponsor would have been directed to undertake an airspace change. If the powers in Part 1 are not used in this timeframe, there will be no impact on GA to be assessed and reported.
Secondly, Part 2 relates to NERL’s licence. NERL is responsible for upper airspace, where GA aircraft, other than business jets, do not routinely fly. An impact assessment, relating to Part 2, of the effects on GA would be very limited in content. The Secretary of State is aware that ACPs can have both positive and negative effects on stakeholders, including the GA community. If an individual ACP were directed, the impacts on GA would be set out in the CAP1616 process and GA bodies would be consulted if there were impacts.
I will revisit some of the things that the Government already do to ensure that the GA sector is fully represented at every level of the airspace modernisation governance structure. First, the Government are grateful to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation for sharing the findings of the inquiry into UK lower airspace led by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope. The Government will continue to consider these recommendations during future updates to the AMS.
Secondly, CAP1711b, the governance annexe of the AMS, lists all the organisations that must be engaged in airspace modernisation. For example, ACOG is required to demonstrate how it has engaged with GA bodies such as the General and Business Aviation Strategic Forum in order for the master plan to be accepted by the CAA. To further strengthen ACOG, two GA representatives now sit on its steering committee.
Additionally, and following the Kirkhope inquiry, the Secretary of State has amended the air navigation directions to require the CAA to undertake a review, in consultation with airspace users, of airspace classification. The review will identify volumes of controlled airspace where the classification could be amended to better reflect the needs of all airspace users. The Secretary of State has also directed the CAA to prioritise ACPs from GA aerodromes relating to global navigation satellite systems—GNSS—approaches.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
There are no questions for the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. In light of the assurances she has given us, I am happy to withdraw Amendment 1 and send this Bill to the other end, where they will no doubt consider her response in great depth. I shall also not be moving the rest of the amendments in my name in this group.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 3
Lord Tunnicliffe
“( ) If a direction given to a person under subsection (1) is predominantly or wholly to enable the air change proposals of a third party to be completed as part of the masterplan for airspace modernisation and not an airspace change proposal of the person itself and would lead to adverse financial impacts for that person, the Secretary of State may compensate that person and may recover the cost of compensation wholly or in part from the third party.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
I move Amendment 3 and I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 3 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts. Amendment 4 would empower the Secretary of State to provide that a person who is directed to progress an airspace change is fairly compensated for doing so, and that the compensation can be recovered from another person involved in airspace change where appropriate. Amendment 6 would empower the Secretary of State to require a person involved in airspace change to compensate another person who had been directed to progress an airspace change. Amendment 7 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.
One of the problems of getting organisations to co-operate is that some parties are unwilling to do so and they will use the financial impact on them as their excuse, particularly if one party is required to co-ordinate the activity and invest considerable work but is not likely to gain financially from the changes it is developing. Then it will be reluctant to move. Efforts to improve airflow planning over south-east England have been going on for at least a decade. It is important that, if it is a matter of financial limitations, the Bill allows appropriate mechanisms for money to flow between parties and perhaps from government.
This is important between big players, such as the airports and NATS. It is also important in the case of small airports or airfields on the periphery of the controlled airspace, where small changes may have significant adverse effects on them and they are not equipped—particularly financially—to mount a proper representation to have their voices heard without some recognition of the financial burden on them. Clearly, the movement of monies between the parties as allowed for in this group of amendments may not be necessary, but since we are creating a Bill to address all eventualities in the development of modern airspace it is important at this stage to make sure that there are facilities for money to move about and, in extremis, for government perhaps to finance parts of that development. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, our airspace modernisation is a complex but necessary process. It is necessary in the modern world because it enables environmental gains in an industry increasingly under fire for its emissions and where the technological solutions are much more long term than they are in the case of, for example, road vehicles. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has just pointed out, one person’s gain is often another person’s loss. These are useful amendments because there is a real fear of a potential conflict between airports as the modernisation process goes forward.
In Committee, I mentioned that Stansted and Luton airports, for example, are very close geographically. It is not impossible to imagine that what would help Stansted might deprive Luton; for example, a potential airspace route that would cost it money in terms of potential for new services. Since the Committee stage, airports have found themselves in great financial difficulty because of travel restrictions. These amendments are therefore designed to ensure what I assume is an even-handed approach from the Secretary of State down through the CAA and the Airspace Change Organising Group.
The Airport Operators Association remains concerned about the funding of this issue—I raised that in the last group and was delighted to hear that the Minister has agreed to deal with it in her response here. When this matter was raised previously by the Airport Operators Association, the Aviation Minister suggested three sources of funding in a situation where one airport was going to win at the expense of another. The first suggestion was that alternative sponsors might pay. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain exactly what is intended with that proposal.
The second suggestion from the Aviation Minister was that funding might come from the £10-million airspace modernisation fund. That sounds fine but it is actually a relatively small sum so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether that is a fixed sum or extra funding would potentially be available.
Thirdly, there was a suggestion of government funding on a case-by-case basis. If the Government have any further thoughts on this, it would be really good to hear them at this stage. I hope that the Minister can put the Government’s intentions on record today to clarify these issues.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is to enable compensation for the recipient of a direction if the airspace change is predominantly or wholly for the benefit of a third party and if issuing a direction would lead to adverse financial impacts. Amendments 3 and 7 would also allow the Secretary of State to recover the cost of the compensation from the third party.
It is important for me to be clear up front that, while we recognise the severe impact that Covid-19 is having on the aviation sector, the “user pays” policy principle is an important one: those who stand to benefit from airspace change should pay for the costs of such a change. In the light of the pandemic and its effects on the aviation industry, most airports have paused their work on airspace change. However, airspace modernisation remains critical to deliver additional capacity and improve access to airspace for different users; it also brings environmental benefits by reducing emissions.
Therefore, the Government have asked the Airspace Change Organising Group—ACOG—to revisit the master plan for airspace change in this light to ensure that the benefits of the programme are realised and that the investment already made is not lost. In July last year, ACOG published a report on remobilising airspace change. It included 10 recommendations aiming to ensure that the programme advances, while recognising the financial pressures faced by airports and the industry.
The DfT and the CAA immediately accepted recommendations 1, 2 and 4. First, we will ask ACOG to establish clear protocols for the airports that are able to resume work on airspace change, how we engage with those where work has paused and the exit process for those that decide to opt out of the programme, subject to their criticality to the programme as a whole. Secondly, we will ask NERL and ACOG to work together to re-evaluate NERL’s 2018 feasibility report into airspace modernisation to identify the core set of airport-led airspace changes that will be required in the post-Covid world. Lastly, in the short term, the CAA will work with ACOG to ensure that work on airspace change that can still progress does not conflict with or constrain the broader programme.
Officials continue to work closely with the CAA to consider the remaining seven recommendations. One of these includes funding to tackle the short-term airspace change proposal—ACP—funding gaps potentially created by Covid-19. In the light of the pandemic, we recognise that the timescales in which airspace modernisation will take place will necessarily change. ACOG therefore plans to develop the future iteration of the airspace modernisation master plan in 2021.
The powers in the Bill are tied to the airspace modernisation strategy—the AMS—and the master plan. The Secretary of State could make a direction only to persons involved in airspace change based on this strategy. Therefore, it follows that there are no plans to use these powers in the near future while the industry recovers from the pandemic. As I have said, the need to modernise the UK’s airspace has not changed. We will need these powers in future once the master plan has been developed and the modernisation programme has been restarted to ensure that the strategy can be implemented in the years to come.
The Government recognise that there may be occasions when a small airport, or another person involved in airspace change, may require financial assistance to carry out some aspects of an ACP. We expect the CAA’s oversight team to work with the potential sponsor before recommending that the Secretary of State uses the powers to direct an ACP. At this early stage, if the potential sponsor expressed concerns that it did not have sufficient funding to proceed with a particular ACP, we would expect the oversight team to work with the potential sponsor to suggest alternative solutions.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation and for placing it on the record. I note that the Government are not entirely closed to the idea that financial considerations may be important, and that they may have to act to ease the burden on one party against another or make some arrangement, even if it is not a direction. I found the answers useful; unfortunately, I would have found an answer where she agreed with me entirely more useful. Nevertheless, I think that this has gone far enough for me to be happy to withdraw the amendment, and I give notice that I do not intend to move the other amendments in this group.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 10: Air traffic services licensed under Part 1 of the Transport Act 2020: enforcement
Amendment 12
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“(5A) In section 34 (investigations), for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—“(1) A person may make a representation to the CAA about an alleged or apprehended contravention of a section 8 duty or a licence condition.(2) Where a representation is made to the CAA, the CAA may— (a) consider the representation;(b) investigate the alleged or apprehended contravention.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides the Civil Aviation Authority with discretion over whether to investigate alleged or apprehended contraventions of section 8 duties or licence conditions by air traffic services licence holders. This discretionary power would replace the current requirement for the CAA to investigate alleged or apprehended contraventions in certain circumstances.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, NATS and the CAA for their very constructive engagement on this issue, which has resulted in these government amendments. In moving Amendment 12 I will speak also to Amendment 21.
Amendment 12 seeks to amend Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000 to give the CAA greater flexibility to consider representations about an alleged or apprehended contravention—or a complaint—and to ensure that resources are used effectively. Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000 currently places an obligation on the CAA to investigate a complaint if the representation is made by—or on behalf of—a person who appears to have an interest. While this obligation does not apply if the representation appears to the CAA to be frivolous or vexatious, in practice this section as currently worded gives the CAA little discretion not to commence formal investigations. As a result, the licence holder and CAA may be presented with a considerable burden when engaging with an investigation which could potentially have serious resource implications, even where the CAA then decides not to take further enforcement action.
Amendment 12 will provide clarity and flexibility for the CAA and stakeholders as to when investigations should be commenced. This will reduce the potential for unnecessary investigations which have no material effect—or which result in no enforcement action being taken—without watering down the CAA’s powers, or the ability of parties to raise a complaint. The CAA will publish updated enforcement guidance, which can refer to the application of Section 34.
Amendment 21 is a minor, consequential amendment. The Bill already makes a consequential amendment to Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000. That provision would have changed the current reference in Section 34 from “condition of a licence” to “licence condition”. As Section 34 is being amended more substantively, that consequential amendment is no longer required.
I turn briefly to Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I am grateful to the noble Lord for engaging with this. Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the CAA would impose penalties on the licence holder, NERL, only where the contravention of the licence or Section 8 duty is serious, and it was deemed proportionate to do so. Following extensive engagement with NERL and detailed consideration, the Government are of the view that this amendment is not necessary. There are already sufficient legal checks and balances contained in the Bill, as well as through policy and guidance, to prevent disproportionate fines being levied on a licence holder.
The proposed amendment would also depart from the approach taken in the equivalent provision in the Civil Aviation Act 2012, meaning that the threshold for imposing a penalty relating to NERL would be higher than that for an airport’s economic licence. This would create a disparity in CAA enforcement across the sector. I do, however, appreciate the importance of considering the seriousness of the contravention, along with the proportionality of imposing a fine, and I will take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords of what provision has already been made.
First, the power of the CAA to impose a penalty is discretionary, and it would do so only for the most serious contraventions or as a matter of last resort. All regulators, including the CAA, are already required to consider the better regulation agenda—as well as the Macrory principles of better enforcement—in exercising their regulatory and enforcement functions. The Macrory principles explicitly state that enforcement must be proportionate to the nature of the offence and to the harm caused. In practice, proportionality will be considered at every stage of a stepped process to enforcement, which will be set out in the CAA’s enforcement guidance and statement of policy on penalties. The CAA is required to consult relevant stakeholders on the latter. The CAA will decide whether to impose a penalty, and the level of penalty, by assessing the seriousness and harm caused to users by the contravention, through the lens of its statutory duties under the Transport Act 2000.
If the CAA were to propose a penalty on the licence holder, the Bill contains procedural safeguards, in the form of consultation with the licence holder, before the penalty could be imposed. This would give the licence holder the opportunity to highlight the steps it is taking to mitigate the contravention. The CAA would consider all stakeholder representations ahead of imposing a penalty. If the licence holder were to disagree with an imposed penalty, they could appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which would have to have regard to the financeability duty imposed on the CAA under Section 2 of the Transport Act 2000. This approach is broadly aligned with equivalent provisions in the Civil Aviation Act 2012. The Government’s decision to modernise the air traffic licensing regime recognised that appropriate alignment with similar regulatory regimes would provide stakeholders with greater clarity and certainty and assist the CAA in exercising its regulatory functions and statutory duties in a more effective manner.
Turning to Amendment 20, I think we are agreed that the CAA should have a discretionary power to investigate complaints under Section 34, as set out in Amendment 12. It would therefore be inconsistent to narrow the power for the CAA to obtain information in relation to Section 34. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, these amendments relate to the CAA’s function to investigate complaints over breaches of licence conditions. Since the CAA has considerable powers, any limitation of those powers needs to be carefully balanced. There are concerns within various parts of the aviation industry about how the dual role of the CAA effectively operates in relation to these issues.
I regret that I am speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, because I want to listen carefully to the thoughts behind his amendments. It is important to fully understand the purpose of Amendment 20 in narrowing the power to obtain information. I believe it is in the spirit of the other limitations within this group of amendments, which seem entirely sensible.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we fully support Amendments 12 and 21. We put forward amendments in Committee, in the light of conversations with the CAA, which we felt made some good points. We put these to the Government, who said, as Governments always do, “We don’t think much of your amendments but we agree with what you’re trying to do. Can we do it our way?” And my view is, yes, we can do it in the way they wish to draft it.
I turn to Amendment 19. In many ways, the Minister has answered the question: will the CAA behave in a responsible and proportionate way? She has basically assured us that it will, and that it is implied in general legislation.
On Amendment 20, we felt that the CAA’s powers were overly wide. I do not have a more specific reason for tabling the amendment, other than that the two concepts in Amendments 19 and 20 stood together.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for a brief and constructive discussion. This is the culmination of many discussions of these issues, and we were very keen to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that we recognised his concerns. We did—in typical government fashion—decide that our amendment was better than his, for which I apologise, but I suspect we were probably right. I am very grateful that the noble Lord is supporting the amendments. I tried very hard to set out exactly what we would expect the CAA to do in relation to his Amendment 19, and I am pleased that I have reassured him.
On Amendment 20, we felt that it would be inconsistent to narrow the power for the CAA to obtain information in relation to Section 34, because the Bill currently includes the power for the CAA
“to obtain information for … carrying out its functions under section 34 and Schedule B1”.
This covers documents or information that the person has or are under their control. It is important to note that:
“The CAA may give a notice under this paragraph only in respect of information or documents that it reasonably requires”—
I suspect that is a bit of narrowing—
“for the purpose of carrying out its functions under section 34 or Schedule B1.”
Therefore, we do not feel that it is necessary to limit the power, as we believe that the Bill is already appropriately drafted. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12A. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 12A
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“Airport slot allocation(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at United Kingdom airports is amended as follows.(2) After Article 10a insert—“Article 10aaTemporary power to make regulations about airport slot allocation1 The Secretary of State may by regulations amend or modify this Regulation or the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/2665) to make provision about the allocation of airport slots to air carriers in respect of specified periods.2 The Secretary of State may make regulations under this Article only if the Secretary of State considers that as a result of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2—(a) there has been a reduction in the level of air traffic in a period compared to the corresponding period in a relevant previous year, and(b) the reduction is likely to persist.3 The power to make regulations under this Article may not be exercised—(a) after 24 August 2024, or(b) in respect of a period after the winter season following 24 August 2024.4 Regulations under this Article may, in particular, make provision—(a) requiring coordinators to consider slots allocated for a specified period as having been operated by the air carrier to which they were initially allocated, subject to any conditions as may be specified in the regulations being met;(b) modifying Articles 8(2), 10(2) and (4) and 14(6) of this Regulation to apply for a specified period as if they contained different percentage figures, subject to any conditions as may be specified in the regulations being met;(c) modifying Article 10(4) of this Regulation to apply for a specified period as if it included additional reasons on the basis of which non-utilisation of slots by an air carrier can be justified;(d) modifying Article 14 of this Regulation to apply for a specified period as if it included a power for the coordinator to withdraw slots from an air carrier for the remainder of a scheduling period where the coordinator determines that the air carrier has ceased its operations at the airport concerned and is no longer able to operate the slots allocated to it;(e) about enforcement of any provision made under this Article, including modifying for a specified period Article 14 of this Regulation or regulations 14 to 19 of the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006;(f) modifying for a specified period any provision of this Regulation relating to the allocation of slots to new entrants (including the definition of new entrant);(g) modifying for a specified period any provision of this Regulation relating to coordination parameters. 5 In paragraph 2(a) “relevant previous year” means any previous year that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of comparing levels of air traffic.”(3) In Article 13 (regulations)—(a) after paragraph 1 insert—1a A statutory instrument containing regulations under Article 10aa may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”;(b) in paragraph 2, for “Regulations” substitute “Any other regulations”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide the Secretary of State with a temporary power to amend the airport slot allocation provisions in Council Regulation 95/93 and the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006 where, due to coronavirus, there has been a reduction in the level of air traffic that is likely to persist.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 12A, 18A, 18B and 44 are a series of government amendments to provide temporary powers for the alleviation of airport slot usage rules. This will amend retained EU regulation 95/93, which governs the allocation of UK airport slots.
Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the 80:20 rule—or the so-called use it or lose it rule—encouraged the efficient use of scarce airport capacity, while allowing airlines a degree of flexibility in their operations. There are eight slot-constrained airports in the UK to which the 80:20 rule applies: Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Luton, Stansted, Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester. The 80:20 rule mandates that, provided an airline has used its airport capacity at least 80% of the time in the preceding scheduling period—either winter or summer—it is entitled to those slots in the upcoming equivalent period.
Due to the unprecedented impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, in March last year the EU Commission took the decision to waive the 80:20 rule. Airport co-ordinators were instructed, when determining slot allocations for the upcoming summer season, to consider slots as having been operated regardless of whether they were actually used. This waiver covered the summer 2020 season and was subsequently extended to cover winter 2020-21. The UK supported the EU’s position.
Without alleviation, airlines may have incurred significant financial costs by operating flights at low load factors merely to retain their slots. Alleviation has helped to protect future connectivity and airline finances and reduced the risk of ghost flights being run to retain slots.
We anticipate that the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the aviation industry will continue for some time. Passenger demand is not predicted to return to 2019 levels until at least 2024-25. After we exited the UK-EU transition period on 31 December, regulation 95/93 was retained in UK law. However, when it was retained, the powers of the Commission to extend the period of alleviation from the 80:20 rule—which are being transferred to the Secretary of State—were expressly limited to 2 April 2021. As we expect disruption to air travel to continue for several years, it is therefore imperative that the UK has the necessary powers at its disposal to provide alleviation beyond the summer 2021 season should the evidence suggest that it is warranted.
Amendment 12A inserts a new clause after Clause 11 in Part 2 of the Bill. The new clause would insert a new Article 10aa into retained Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at United Kingdom airports. This would provide the Secretary of State with a power, exercisable until 24 August 2024 and not in respect of a scheduling period after winter 2024-25, to provide air carriers with alleviation from the requirement to operate airport slots allocated to them 80% of the time in order to retain the slots for the next equivalent scheduling period.
To allow for flexibility, this amendment also includes powers to modify the 80% requirement relating to slots usage. This will be an alternative to applying a full alleviation of the 80:20 rule for a specified scheduling period or season. This recognises that there could be alternative ratios, not 80:20, which could be applied to ensure the efficient use of slots. It will also allow the Secretary of State to apply conditions to an alleviation of the 80:20 rule, such as by setting a deadline for the return of slots not intended for operation, or that a waiver will not apply to a series of slots of an airline that, for example, ceases to operate at an airport.
The amendment also allows the Government to make other changes to the operation of the rules relating to the allocation of slots under this regulation for the duration of the relevant scheduling period. For example, the Government could change co-ordination parameters to reflect partial closures of airports, adopt temporary rules for the most efficient allocation of unused slots, and give the slot co-ordinator enforcement powers—for example, where unused slots are not returned with sufficient time to enable them to be effectively reallocated to other carriers. Having the powers to vary the 80:20 ratio and apply conditions to be in place on application of the rule will allow appropriate measures to support the sector’s recovery as passenger demand returns.
The use of this power will require secondary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure, for any applicable scheduling period in which evidence supports the conclusion that relaxation of the 80:20 rule is appropriate. The nature and extent of any relaxation will be subject to targeted consultation and, of course, there will be a debate in both Houses.
This approach will allow us to use current data and evidence, as well as to consult stakeholders, to make judgments on whether alleviations are required for each period and, if so, to what extent. We will also assess other institutions’ analysis and recommendations on slots usage rules for future seasons, including the Worldwide Airport Slot Board, and proposals from other areas, such as the European Union and the United States.
Amendment 18A is a consequential amendment to Clause 19 to reflect that the new clause on airport slot allocation extends to England, Scotland and Wales but not Northern Ireland, where aerodromes are a matter reserved for the devolved Assembly. As noted, however, all slot co-ordinated airports in the United Kingdom are currently in England.
Amendment 18B is a consequential amendment to Clause 20 and provides for the new clause to come into force immediately when the Bill is passed and becomes an Act. This amendment ensures that regulations could be made under the new Clause 11A, relating to airport slot allocation, following Royal Assent, so that they are ready to come into force as soon as appropriate thereafter.
Amendment 44 amends the long title of the Bill to include reference to airport slot allocation. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these amendments and her explanation of the background. I should explain to the House that for most of my time as a Member of the other House I represented Aberdeen Airport; I say “most of my time” not because the airport relocated, but because my constituency boundaries changed. As a result of that, and of the fact that I commuted weekly by air to Parliament for decades—until lockdown last March, I continued to do so—I have taken an interest in aviation. Until lockdown I was also a frequent traveller around Europe and the rest of the world, and have experience of a variety of airlines and airports, large and small.
The allocation of airline landing slots is controversial, in terms of competition and commercial opportunity, as well as of access from feeder airports to the co-ordinated airports—a particular concern of mine. I completely understand the reason for the current waiver of the 80:20 “use it or lose it” rule, in the present climate. As the Minister said, we are following the same measures as the EU. Since she touched on this, does she foresee any circumstances in which the UK would, or should, take a different approach—for example, in how the proportions are reallocated? What would be the criteria or the conditions for that to happen?
I understand the complexity of managing slots, especially when airlines have seen their incomes decimated, and the fact that, as the Minister said, the predictions are for a long, slow period of recovery. At the same time, airport managers understandably wish to maximise traffic through their airports and resent it if airlines retain slots that they do not use, especially if other airlines are seeking additional slots with the intention of building a service. Given the need to maintain good relations with its airline clients, an airport may be unwilling to express its frustration. Clear, legally enforceable rules would be helpful, so does the Minister think that legal enforceability of the slots rules should be considered?
Access to services to and from London airports is especially critical for Scottish and Northern Ireland airports, both for access to London and for connections to Europe and the rest of the world. Of course services are driven by demand and commercial reality, but it is acknowledged that wider economic consideration for linkages is also important. That was demonstrated by the Government’s intervention on the collapse of Flybe, in relation to certain regional services.
Leaving aside the case for subsidies—I am not engaging with that in this debate, even for lifeline services, as it seems an important but separate issue—there has been a belief among many airport users that feeder routes to London may be profitable, but that the slots could be more profitably used for long-haul routes. The feeder routes were not necessarily uncommercial, but perhaps less profitable. Control and possible hoarding of slots by the larger airlines restricts competition and makes it difficult for other airlines to develop alternative services.
At the height of oil and gas activity in Aberdeen, we had daily flights to not only Heathrow but Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted; more recently Loganair trialled a service to Southend, but that did not last long. British Airways pulled out of providing a service to Gatwick and London City years ago. I found that hard to understand, as many of the airline’s holiday flights operate from Gatwick and transfers from Heathrow to Gatwick are not relaxing. EasyJet pulled the last Gatwick link, and Flybe and Eastern ended the City flights. Flybe and Virgin both attempted to offer a Heathrow service but neither became established, although it was Flybe’s demise that ended its Heathrow link.
As of this week, because of the pandemic, we have one or two return flights a day to Heathrow, compared with the six or seven we would expect in normal times. EasyJet will start providing daily flights to Luton from March, and—hallelujah—to Gatwick from May, Covid permitting. No doubt users of Belfast Airport will have a similar story, while Inverness has had to fight to retain links to London. Indeed, the reduction in services to London has seen business switch to Amsterdam and Paris, to which we have direct services, although those services, too, are currently limited.
As has been said, airlines’ recovery post-pandemic is likely to be slow but could also be ruthlessly competitive. Will the Government consider how the allocation of slots can be managed to ensure that it works in the best interests of all stakeholders, including the flying customers and feeder airports? Can airlines be prevented from hoarding routes they do not use, if that keeps out feeder routes or newcomers?
What steps can be taken to ensure that the allocation of slots takes into account the economic and social needs of remote communities, which are by definition more dependent on air links? Just for the record, the train journey from Aberdeen to London takes a minimum of seven hours, and at the moment we have only one direct service without changes; the others take longer. For people living in such areas, flying is not a luxury but an essential part of life.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is part two of a discussion that we started earlier this week on the SI on this subject, which gave the Government temporary powers. Since Committee stage, a year ago, we have had the impact of the pandemic and the EU has waived the usual 80:20 rules on slot usage. That was welcome because it avoids ghost flights—empty flights, just to keep slots.
In the amendments the Government are giving themselves powers until 2024 to continue to waive the rules altogether or to vary them, possibly by varying the percentages. That is a whole new issue to have entered the Bill—something that was simply not there a year ago. I wondered about the 2024 date and whether the period was a tad lengthy but time and time again in this pandemic, things have taken much longer to play out than we thought they would. On reflection, 2024 seems to allow a reasonable period ahead to give a level of certainty.
Because we did not have these substantial amendments prior to Report today, however, I have some questions for the Minister. First, Amendment 12A involves temporary powers to make regulations about slot allocation. Paragraph 4(d) of the new article it inserts would allow the co-ordinator to “withdraw slots” from a carrier where it is determined that
“the air carrier has ceased its operations at the airport concerned”.
My question to the Minister is: how would that be determined? I have in mind a question similar to the one I asked earlier in the week about Gatwick. Virgin has announced that it will not fly from Gatwick in future and will no longer have a base there. Indeed, it no longer does have a base there—but it retains its slots. Slots are a very valuable commodity, so how is such a situation likely to be approached in future?
My second question is on the same amendment. Paragraph 2(a) refers to “a relevant previous year”, which is later defined as:
“any previous year that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for … comparing levels of … traffic.”
That is an extraordinarily broad and vague definition, as levels of traffic vary dramatically according to the make-up of carriers from specific airports—with new ones coming and going—and to their commercial decisions. It also uses the term of a year, while slot waivers work in seasons to reflect the patterns of demand, which vary from season to season. Can the Minister confirm that the year as a whole will be the point of comparison?
Another point that I raised in our debate earlier this week is that the number of available slots currently greatly outweighs the capacity of the airlines to fill them, because as the pandemic has progressed they have greatly reduced their staff and the number of planes that they own or rent. How do the Government intend to approach this problem, whereby the number of slots cannot be filled by the current capacity of airlines?
Slot hoarding has to be tackled. The 80:20 rule is designed to maintain the competitiveness of the industry, which means fair ticket prices for passengers. If the waiver is exploited it will be bad for new entrants to the market, bad for passengers, and bad for airports. The powers or conditions that the Government have included here, therefore, and the potential to vary the 80:20 ratio, seem a sensible and welcome approach to the situation that we face, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanations.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we generally support these four amendments, and we thank the Minister for tabling them for our examination. Nevertheless, one must recognise that the dilemma brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his contribution, is a real one. It is important to see these amendments as quite separate from the general problem. Can the Minister tell the House what examination of this problem the Government expect to conduct in the future?
I know from my own experience, which goes back to the 1980s, that slot allocation is a very difficult and challenging problem in the airline industry. One of the problems in life is that when there are many parties to finding an overall solution to the distribution of a scarce resource the solutions you get become very difficult to change: creating a level of change that would address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would be in the best “Yes Minister” category—very brave. I hope, nevertheless, that the Minister can lay out some of the plans for addressing this issue.
On the amendments as a whole, I have a few questions. The Minister may have answered them—I was slightly distracted, so I hope the House will forgive me if we go over old ground.
First, my understanding is that each season’s solution, under these amendments, will be subject to an affirmative order. I would value a simple assurance on that.
Secondly, the Heathrow authorities told us that in their view the agreements that were being developed through the Worldwide Airport Slot Board were more optimal than the solution we have had to adopt for the summer of 2021. Should, therefore, the parties—the airlines, airports and other stakeholders—come to a worldwide agreement on slot allocation? These things are co-ordinated on a worldwide basis. Certainly, when I was a senior executive the most important date of my year was the IATA timetable conference in October, which addressed the following summer’s slots. If the airlines and airports produce an overall solution, is there enough flexibility in this proposed solution to allow the Secretary of State—I stress allow, not require—to endorse such a comprehensive, multiagency agreement?
Finally, can the Minister assure the House—and the industry—that there will be adequate consultation with all stakeholders for each season that is managed under these amendments?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on these amendments, and I recognise that it is far from ideal to bring them to the House on Report. It is simply the nature of the beast and the situation that we are in: these amendments relate to the Covid-19 pandemic and our hoped-for recovery from it.
I will first address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He set out many of the challenges faced by the Government—both the short-term task of building back our aviation industry, and the longer-term strategy for the sector. I recognise that slot allocation is a challenge. I would not say it is controversial—it is just one of the challenges that one has to deal with.
The Government have recognised that this is an issue and carried out a consultation on it, alongside, I think, the consultation on the aviation strategy—which was a little while ago, in perhaps 2018 or 2019. We did, therefore, recognise the issue, and we asked the industry and other parties with an interest in the aviation sector how we might reform slot allocation. It remains the Government’s intention to do a piece of work on the long-term reform of slot allocation. But that is not for now. Now, we have to deal with the current situation by making amendments that are not minor but do not amount to an overhaul of the entire slot allocation process.
We do take into account the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised. The noble Lord asked whether we would take a different approach to the EU, and I suspect that we will, but not that we necessarily will—it depends on the EU’s approach to the periods after summer 2021. We will, however, certainly be looking at other percentages in relation to a waiver, and considering very carefully the conditions that we attach to the regulations.
The noble Lord also mentioned enforcement powers, and I think that I said, in my opening remarks, that we would consider them. There are probably at least three key elements to the way in which we will take this forward. We need to think about: new entrants and whether they are able to get into the market; the needs of passengers, which is a critical element; and—as the noble Lord pointed out to great effect—regional connectivity, particularly to places, such as Aberdeen, where the alternative is very long. Being on a train for seven hours does not sound like huge fun.
I think we will return to many of the points the noble Lord raised when we discuss the regulations that will be put before your Lordships’ House. I look forward to those debates; I think they will be quite challenging, and we will be able to have discussions on all the elements he mentioned.
Turning to issues raised the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I am pleased that she agrees with 2024. Would it not be nice if we did not have to do anything until 2024? But I suspect we may need to be doing something by then, so we are just future-proofing the amendments. The noble Baroness had a number of quite detailed questions about how one, for example, determines that an operator has ceased operations. Those are exactly the things we are asking the sector at the moment. The consultation, as the noble Baroness knows, started right at the end of December—a three-week targeted consultation to try to get to the bottom of these very knotty problems.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14, and I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 14
Baroness Randerson
“Review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft, and whether it provides sufficient protection to individuals.(2) The review should make reference to, but is not limited to—(a) whether privacy legislation is sufficient to cover threats posed to personal privacy by unmanned aircraft;(b) the merits of introducing mandatory remote identification;(c) the merits of introducing mandatory geo-fencing;(d) whether criminal law sufficiently protects against—(i) the modification of unmanned aircraft; and (ii) the weaponisation of unmanned aircraft;(e) whether there should be a minimum age for the purchase and operation of unmanned aircraft, and what the appropriate age would be;(f) whether the CAA’s system for registering operators of unmanned aircraft ensures sufficient supervision for those who are under the age of 18 operating unmanned aircraft;(g) whether a licensing requirement should be introduced for unmanned aircraft above a certain weight;(h) the Government’s strategy for managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas.(3) The review must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation in the light of its findings.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a further review in the same terms every 12 months after the review under subsection (1).”
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 14 and give notice that I am minded to put it to a vote at the end of the debate. As I said earlier, this Bill is a bit of a mess—through no fault of the Minister; it is simply the passage of time, and time has definitely taken its toll. This applies in particular to the clauses on unmanned aircraft.
Since 2016, I have been urging the Government to bring forward legislation on drones. The Minister reminds us from time to time that unmanned aircraft include model aircraft, but I am concerned here solely with drones. In the five years since I first addressed this issue, drone technology has been transformed, and so has the number of drones in operation. They are of massive importance to our military, to the police and other emergency services, and to countless businesses across the UK. It is wonderful, transformative technology; it is also very worrying technology. In the wrong hands, drones carry illegal drugs, take illicit mobile phones into prisons and threaten major loss of life by interfering with flights, as we saw at Gatwick in 2019. “Wrong hands” obviously includes criminals, but also careless and untrained hands.
Since we started this Bill in 2019, EU legislation has been updated, and that is reflected in the details of the amendments here today. But they do not reflect the broader approach that is now needed. The Bill is a wasted opportunity, because it is largely a list of additional powers for the police. That approach is unsatisfactorily narrow, and my amendment outlines the broad approach that I believe needs to be taken. It needs to address the serious concerns of BALPA, the Airport Operators Association and many airlines about safety and security risks from drones. I have specified the range of issues I am worried about, but I do not believe it is an exclusive list. Some of them relate to technical advances, such as the availability of geofencing and remote ID. Others relate to possible shortcomings in criminal law in relation to the deliberate weaponisation of drones. Potential risks from overseas exist now that the technology allows longer-distance flying.
The amendment in this group in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, also raises important issues about commercially used drones, which are often specialist and valuable. My amendment addresses the issue of the appropriate minimum age to be in charge of a drone. EU legislation allows a minimum age of 14, and the Government have supported this. But that is a minimum: it does not have to be that low within the EU rules, and, in any event, we have of course left the EU. Legislation allows drones to be registered to anyone over 18, but they can be flown by people younger than this, and there is no requirement for the registered owner to be present and in the line of sight of the person flying the drone. So, the question is whether this is sufficient supervision.
In preparation for this debate, I spent a long time online looking at adverts for drones, from under £100 to thousands of pounds. In all the adverts I looked at, I saw no reference at all to the rules on registration and supervision, line of sight, heights for flight and so on. Presumably, all that comes with the instructions in the box. But I am not entirely sure that everyone reads the instructions in the box carefully.
Also untouched by this Bill is the issue of privacy. There are serious concerns that drones can allow invasions of privacy. I said earlier that the Bill concentrates on police powers, but police use drones as a tool themselves, and they are a very useful tool in fighting crime. The vast majority of police forces now use drones, but there appears to be no overall dedicated guidance for police on the way in which they are to be deployed, or provision of information on how they should be used. This is a potentially controversial area, as we saw when Derbyshire police used drones at the start of the pandemic to watch walkers in the countryside, with the potential to levy fines on them.
This is a fast-developing technology, and my amendment recognises that by seeking a review of the legislation within six months, and every year thereafter, to ensure that it is, and remains, fit for purpose. I am not prescribing solutions, just outlining issues to be addressed and asking for a more comprehensive and effective approach to the whole issue of drones.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 14 and shall speak to Amendment 15, which stands in my name. It is a probing amendment and I shall not divide the House on it.
After Committee, I was informed that unmanned aircraft and drone operators holding CAA permission for commercial operation—PfCOs—were concerned about the scale of the police powers introduced by the Bill. Recent changes to the ANO 2016 affecting the use of unmanned aircraft have dispensed with PfCOs and new categories for unmanned aircraft operations are provided for all users. The concern is that use of the police powers designed principally for recreational users or potential criminal use could cause commercial operators loss of time or money, or even cause them to fail to meet a contract.
For example, a building inspection by a drone operator might involve manoeuvres putting the drone closer to the structure than would be acceptable for a hobby user. Were the police to order the immediate grounding of a drone in such a CAA-approved use or, looking to the future, of a drone with CAA operational authorisation for beyond visual sight, extended visual sight or even swarm flights, this could lead to business disruption and loss. Would the police consider a complaint from the public reasonable grounds to order grounding? Would the police authority be responsible for such a commercial loss? I expect not, but serious cases might lead to some form of claim by insurers or the operators themselves, so it is reasonable to suggest that, for flights with CAA operational authorisation, the most the police might be required to do would be to seek presentation of the CAA approval licence, as new Schedule 9 envisages. If still concerned, the police should report the operator to the CAA, which already has extensive statutory powers for investigation and sanction.
As the Minister informed me in an exchange of letters we have had about this amendment, new risk-based categories apply to all UA activities, but this does not seem to be any reason for commercial operators, however approved or risk-assessed by the CAA, to be less concerned about the difficulties they might face if the police powers were to be exercised in ways that, maybe inadvertently, were to delay or interfere with the approved use which the CAA had given to the commercial operator.
These operators are further concerned about the level of knowledge of the relevant extensive ANO and CAP 722 publications required of regional police forces to deal with unmanned aircraft operating commercially and whether their increased workload will be funded, particularly as this activity expands. No one would welcome a breach of trust between the police and commercial businesses if police involvement were to be disruptive to commercial use. In further exchanges with the Minister—I thank her for her engagement with me over these concerns—I have not been given sufficient reassurance about the way police powers in this Bill will be used so as not to lead to potentially harmful outcomes for the commercial operator.
There is considerable growth potential in the commercial use of UAs and, indeed, in the market globally for such remotely controlled devices. The Government quote an addition of £42 billion and more than 600,000 jobs by 2030. The Bill provides an opportunity to show that such commercial users are recognised and being supported by statute and regulation specifically designed to deal with, but not onerously restrict, their activities.
A further consideration is whether some statutory approved way to claim for loss, disruption or damage to the business of the commercial operator—for example, if its unmanned aircraft was incorrectly impounded by the police—should be provided. Would this too be by means of secondary legislation, as envisaged for appeals against fixed penalty fines?
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the probing amendment tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, to insert a new clause. I will not repeat what he just said, but I underline its importance. If we go back in time a little, the Minister may recall that, when she first took office on drones, we—the UK—were a bit behind the curve compared to France, Ireland and Canada. Now, we have an opportunity to take the lead, which is what this new clause is partially about. I want to re-emphasise to Her Majesty’s Government that this industry, in particular, is here to develop commercial distribution and to function at all, the police should not be involved. It should be left to the CAA. It is fair to be open and say to my noble friend that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and I have been in discussions with the industry—particularly with its legal representative, Richard Ryan, who is a well-known and very well-qualified barrister.
I shall give a couple of practical examples. I have been involved with drones almost since the day they were invented. If you have a situation with a constable—let us say in Sandy, where I live—who, under Schedule 9, is simply asking for reasonable grounds for belief, which may be founded on a complaint by a passer-by, the consequence is quite significant for a commercial operator as the constable will have the power to request information while the flight is taking place. I do not know whether the Minister has had a go at flying these things—I hope that she has—but they are not that easy; I speak as a former pilot and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is a very experienced pilot. Anyway, the flight is still taking place, and the operator is being interrupted. Currently, under Part 1 of Schedule 9, paragraph (1)(a) states that while
“a flight by a small unmanned aircraft is taking place”,
the constable may, as paragraph 2(1)(a)(ii) states, require the person to provide
“information that would assist … the constable to verify that … that flight”
is valid. The issue with this is: who takes responsibility for the flight when the pilot is being interrupted by the constable? What if the drone switches out of GPS mode and into attitude mode? It then clearly requires more care and attention with respect to carrying out flight safety under Article 241 of the ANO 2016. I know that my noble friend has all these details at her fingertips, but I remind her that Article 241 clearly states:
“A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.”
I have a couple of other points, which are perfectly practical as well. The amendments to Schedule 9 rely on the fact that a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a provision of the ANO 2016 is or was being contravened, as well as other aspects. How would the constable know at that time what precise provision of the ANO 2016 was being contravened? In practical terms, this is unachievable, due to the complexity of the legislation and/or further amendments to the ANO, leading ultimately to a possible miscarriage of justice.
My next point is very relevant to what is happening in the Covid world at the moment. What is the position if a remote pilot is conducting numerous flights at the same time, whether it is at a drone lightshow or transporting medical supplies on behalf of the NHS at scale? Some of these flights could be beyond the line of sight. This is relevant because, when we start operating at scale, the police will have significant powers which can harm the industry, create unnecessary reputational damage and be of significant cost and disruption to the whole unmanned aviation supply chain.
I have half a dozen other examples, but I do not think that the Minister wants to hear them this evening, although I would be more than happy to supply them. I ask her to reflect that this is a new industry that can and will create many jobs, increase skills and set the UK up as a leading pioneer in unmanned aviation. A system that confronts companies with such onerous terms in the legislation, that captures absolutely all operators, is, in my and my noble friend’s judgment, flawed. We have a situation where the Government have taken a view. We have looked at other jurisdictions, such as Canada—a country I know quite well—where the legislation is about half the scale of ours.
My final thought is that the potential for the loss of income, innovation and opportunity will be significant if this law applies to commercial operations, or those with an operational authorisation, especially in the short term. There is significant reliance on a constable knowing all the relevant aviation laws that apply. This is no good when a drone operator, for example, has a roof survey the next day which he cannot perform because his equipment has been appropriated by the constable in lieu of an investigation with no time limit.
Here is a wonderful potential industry. We need to make sure that, yes, there is control, but that can be done by the CAA, an organisation for which I have had the greatest respect as a pilot myself. Leave it to the CAA—that is what should happen. I hope my noble friend will reflect on some of the evidence that we have managed to produce this afternoon.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have heard a very powerful case from the previous speaker. I see no reason for me to detain the House unreasonably and will speak briefly, principally to Amendment 15. My concerns in Committee centred on what I saw as the need to isolate potentially irresponsible non-commercial users of drones from those who, for perfectly legitimate reasons, seek to exploit commercially this new and innovative use of the technology.
During the debate on 27 January last year, I raised the issue of the confiscation of equipment. On 12 February, I raised the same issue, in particular where rogue operators breached the rules. There has to be a procedure in place which more clearly separates and differentiates the potential rogue operator from the legitimate commercial operation. Fines are too often no deterrent. We know from government stats that there is a high incidence of non-payment among those who have little respect for the law. We need a separate, more vigorously enforced regime for rogue drone operators. We cannot treat CAA-authorised operations in a way which appears similar to that in which we treat recreational users.
The danger in the Government’s approach is that the recreational user will be the beneficiary of the developing, lighter-touch regime that will ultimately and inevitably have to apply to commercial drone operations. This is inevitable as commercial operators exert increasing pressure for the introduction of such a regime to protect commercial viability. Alternatively, if this does not happen, commercial operators will be penalised by the more vigorous approach that will inevitably have to apply to the recreational user. The systems proposed are flawed.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has valiantly sought to convince the department and Ministers of the dangers, but has received little reassurance to date by way of response. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, can clearly see the writing on the wall and therefore seeks a review of the new regime at a later stage. She is to be congratulated on the persistent way in which she has pursued these matters over a number of years. Either way, the system when tested will need to be reviewed. We need two, distinct sets of rules and regimes; a separate regime that is fair to all.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my role as president of BALPA. I thank the Department for Transport for its constructive engagement with officers from BALPA in getting this far—goodness knows, we have spent a long time getting this far with this Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that rogue drone operators are clearly very different to the responsible drone operator that we wish to deal with. However, I am not sure that supporting this amendment is the right way forward. The Bill is not the right vehicle to include a requirement to review unmanned aircraft legislation. It cannot just be left to the CAA, as has been suggested, because if there were a major incident, government would be expected to have a role and to respond. At the same time, the development of drones is proceeding at an enormously fast pace. Will the Minister reassure us that a system of regular review will be put in place?
The serious concerns of BALPA are not limited to where we are today but look to where we might be tomorrow. We hear, for instance, about the problems with multiple use of drones, where one person controls more than one drone. The first instinct is to say, “That’s terrible, isn’t it? We really should have only one person per drone,” but let me put another scenario to the House. If someone is lost at sea, or there is an air crash, you may well want to have a swarm of drones covering a wide area. For that to be effective, you would need one central person to be in control so as to investigate what was beneath, and being observed by, a number of drones. It is not quite as simple as some people seem to imagine.
I would like the Minister to assure us that there will be a regular review, and that she will come back to the House at an appropriate time, possibly in answer to a Question, or put something in the Library, outlining the principles which could follow that review. It is no good saying that we want one every five years or every two years; we need to be able to respond fairly quickly to matters as they come up. I will certainly not be supporting a Division, as passing this clause would not take us forward at all. However, my hope is that some of the principles contained therein are the sort that should be borne in mind in developing the policies that we want to see for the effective and reasonable control of drones, commercially and privately.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is a real and strong disagreement within your Lordships’ House. There are those whom I would call almost the “free enterprise at all costs” people, such as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. They would have very little and ineffective regulation of the system. Then there are those who are being cautious about the fact that this is a rapidly developing industry, while we know that some part of the industry is in the hands of the most unscrupulous people.
I do not accept the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that a police constable is going to interfere with people whom he knows are legitimately carrying out proper business of this sort, such as looking at bridges or buildings. These people will, or should, be registered in a separate register of those who have legitimate reasons to fly drones. Those who do not have a legitimate reason should, in many cases, be subject to the full force of the law because much of what they are doing is illegal.
The other thing is that drones can be a big nuisance factor. We will come on to that in a later amendment, when we talk about areas of outstanding natural beauty. But in her approach to this, the Minister should think about people who are legitimate drone owners—those who are licensed and registered with the CAA, and presumably the local police or enforcing authority—and those who probably should not be let near drones, and are using them for nefarious or criminal activities. However, in considering this amendment, it is important to say that this industry is developing very quickly. The thought of it proceeding on its way with a formal system of being able to review the way it is turning out, probably fairly often, seems a sensible precaution.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I will direct my comments to Amendment 14 but will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to all the points made in respect of Amendment 15.
Amendment 14, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft and whether it provides sufficient protection to individuals. The amendment also sets out a number of issues to which such a review should refer but to which it should not be restricted. The review would be required to make a recommendation on whether the Government should bring forward further legislation in the light of its findings.
Unmanned aircraft—drone—technology is developing fast, and the Government need to ensure that they are proactive, not reactive, when it comes to legislating, where necessary, to reflect developments in this technology and the expansion in the use of drones in the public services, by the Armed Forces and in both the commercial and leisure sectors, as well as by those whose priority may not be operating drones safely and responsibly.
As has been said, unmanned aircraft offer great benefits to society but can also lead to significant areas of concern. Emergency services are utilising drones to save lives, and parcel and freight companies, for example, look to use drones to deliver vital medical supplies as well as day-to-day purchases. Unmanned aircraft are now used in many industries to carry out work that is potentially hazardous for human beings or can be done much more quickly or thoroughly by the use of drones. They are also used by the police, as we have seen during the current Covid-19 crisis and the associated lockdowns—an aspect to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred.
However, there is another side, as we saw from the drone sightings at Gatwick Airport not so long ago, which resulted in flight cancellations and diversions affecting many thousands of passengers. It led, I believe, to a COBRA meeting being convened and the Army being called in, and it also highlighted the urgent need for this Bill, which nevertheless has been going through this House at a snail’s pace and still has to go through the Commons.
We have to be in a position to be sure that legislation keeps pace with developments in the increasing use, and, most importantly, potential misuse, of unmanned aircraft, as they become more sophisticated and powerful in what they can do and for how long—as well as in their range and areas of activity, not least the monitoring of civilians, and in relation to who uses them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also said, drones are used for criminal activity as well.
There is a need to ensure that legislation continues to provide sufficient protection to individuals and that this does not get overlooked in this developing field of technology. There needs to be a mechanism for ensuring the continued adequacy and appropriateness of existing legislation, including this Bill, in a field of activity that is expanding and moving forward and will continue to do so with some rapidity.
It is not sufficient to say that legislation will be kept under review: there are so many areas nowadays, across so many departments, where the Government tell us that legislation is kept under continuous review. We need something in the Bill to ensure that, in such a fast-developing field as unmanned aircraft and the uses to which they are put, regular reviews of legislation take place, covering, but not limited to, the specific points referred to in the amendment. It is equally important that Parliament has a clear role in the review process, which is also provided for in this amendment. Amendment 14 has our support.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate. I will take each amendment in this group in turn, starting with Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, which the Government believe is neither necessary nor appropriate.
The purpose of Part 3 is to attach police powers to offences in a separate piece of legislation—the Air Navigation Order 2016—and to other offences. Therefore, this Bill is not the appropriate place for a requirement to review unmanned aircraft legislation. Furthermore, a number of reviews are already due to take place. I hope this will satisfy the noble Baroness that her amendment is not necessary.
The ANO 2016 is the legislation that currently sets out offences that are specific to unmanned aircraft. Article 275 of the ANO 2016 states that it must be reviewed every five years, and its first statutory review is due to be completed by August 2021. This review will assess the extent to which the law surrounding unmanned aircraft, in so far as it is laid down in that instrument, is operating effectively to achieve its objectives. Of course, this may well be within the noble Baroness’s six-month timeframe.
As the impact assessment for the Bill states, this legislation will be kept under continuous review to ensure that it achieves its objectives: to address the key gaps identified from the 2018 consultation on the future of drones in the UK and to improve the ability of the police to respond to UA misuse, thereby reducing the irresponsible and malicious use of UA. This is in line with the Government’s practice of keeping all UA legislation under review, regardless of whether there is a legislative requirement to do so.
Moreover, ordinarily, a five-year timeframe applies to post-implementation reviews of legislation. This is recommended in the Government’s better regulation framework and the requirements of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, in relation to new measures adopted in secondary legislation regulating business and the voluntary sector. Furthermore, the Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy, published in October 2019, commits the Government to continuing to develop proposals for inclusion in future legislation, so that the legal framework within which operational responders must operate does not become obsolete or hamper their ability to respond to and investigate malicious drone activity. I am very much hoping that these forthcoming reviews will reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the Government take our ability to legislate for the fast-moving world of the unmanned aircraft sector very seriously indeed, and we have work ongoing to make sure that our legislation is up to date.
The noble Baroness briefly mentioned the use of drones by the police. We have had a few conversations about this issue. It might be worth reassuring her that the police have to abide by the same laws as everybody else. Drones are incredibly helpful to police forces and can often be used in places where there is risk to life or where a helicopter might be too expensive or not as efficient. The police have to act within the same laws as everybody else and have operational procedures that overlay those laws in terms of the right way and right circumstances in which to use drones. Decisions for their use are put into place by each police force, which has clear guidance on how they are to be used.
Responsible use is of course really important—for example, on the collection and use of video footage, again, unsurprisingly, the police have to follow the same laws as everybody else. There is also a legal position on public bodies’ use of video footage that is well regulated by directed surveillance authorities. The police are responsible for ensuring that data is collected, processed and stored in accordance with the law. In terms of the safe operation of a drone, the police must do so in accordance with the Air Navigation Order 2016 and, where needed, if the operation is slightly riskier, they will have to apply to CAA for operational authorisation —as, indeed, does anyone else. If any individual has concerns about the use of drones by police, of course they can make a complaint to the police and crime commissioner or the mayor, where appropriate.
I turn to the amendment tabled by noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, which generated an interesting and lively discussion on permissions for commercial operators. Now that the implementing regulation is in place, there is no difference in the requirement to obtain a permission for a commercial or a recreational operator. I will call them “recreational operators” but there are all sorts of different operators. That is absolutely right, because I do not subscribe to the view that “commercial” is good and “recreational” is necessarily bad. Creating that false dichotomy is not really helpful.
It is down to risk, rather than who the person is with their hands on the control. So the implementing regulation draws no distinction between commercial and recreational flights and the ANO has already been amended to reflect that. Of course, the offences that noble Lords are discussing today relate to that ANO but do not amend the ANO itself. So the need to obtain a permission for a purely commercial operation has now been revoked—but, of course, that could be a good thing. Many commercial operators will now be very pleased, because they will not need to apply for a licence to fly a drone which a recreational operator standing right next to them could fly without a licence.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate; it has been very interesting. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support, for signing the amendment and for his clear explanation of his position.
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that she has not reassured me. There has been a very interesting range of views, but the Bill is just a start. My contacts with the drone industry indicate that it believes that a modern, strong legislative framework would be helpful to the industry and not a constraint. I know of several organisations that retain very serious concerns about drones and their operation in the modern world, and about their safety and the societal impact of, for example, illegal activity.
The Minister very fully outlined the Government’s approach, saying that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to have the reviews that I suggest. She referred to the ANO 2016 and the statutory review this year, which she has referred to in previous conversations. I looked at that review, but it does not have the breadth of the one that I am calling for and is not in line with the scope of the amendment that I have tabled. I am afraid that, without a commitment from the Minister to the kind of comprehensive approach that I have in mind, I feel compelled to call a vote on this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 16. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and Minister may speak once only and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 17: Part 3: interpretation
Amendment 16
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This would change the definition of “subordinate legislation” to catch instruments made under retained direct EU legislation on or after “IP completion day”. Retained direct EU legislation came into existence then and it is therefore when powers conferred by the legislation became exercisable.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords are aware, the Government made a series of amendments to the ANO 2016 by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020, which came into force on 31 December 2020. Those amendments were mainly necessary because implementing regulation 2019/947, or the IR, became applicable on 31 December 2020.
The IR was retained in UK law on 31 December 2020 and establishes a framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft to ensure that they are used safely. This includes requirements relating to registration, competency testing, authorisations for higher-risk flights, as well as provision for the creation of geographical zones in which UA use is restricted.
As the IR makes provision for some of the same subject matter as the previous requirements relating to small unmanned aircraft in the ANO, it was necessary to make amendments to the ANO, including removing provisions, to ensure that the two sets of legislative provisions interact correctly, without duplication or contradiction. The amendments to the ANO also create offences for breaches of the requirements of the IR. Those amendments mean that many of the references within the Bill to articles of the ANO, and therefore offences, are now out of date. It is therefore necessary to amend them to ensure that the powers in the Bill continue to function. This and other government amendments to Part 3 do not change the policy intention of the Bill.
The government amendment to Clause 17 is simple and technical. It ensures that the Bill refers to the end of the transition period by changing “exit day” to “IP completion day”, which means the implementation completion date.
Clause 18 deals with regulations made under this Act, and the government amendment to it is consequential to one of the amendments to Schedule 11. The amendment specifies which regulations made under Schedule 11 will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The current draft of the Bill lists regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 11. However, paragraph 4 is removed by an amendment to Schedule 11 and the regulation-making power is set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 instead.
I turn to the government amendments to Schedule 8. This Schedule gives the police the powers to require a UA to be grounded and, in certain circumstances, to stop and search persons and vehicles and to enter and search premises under warrant.
Schedule 8 also amends Section 93 of the Police Act 1997, so that counter-UA measures that involve interference with property or wireless telegraphy can be authorised, and so that the use of these measures in relation to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and custodial institutions can be authorised within those organisations and bodies.
The amendments to Schedule 8 remove the incorrect references to offences and replace them with references to the closest equivalents and offences relating to requirements of the IR of a similar nature among the new corresponding offences in the ANO. For example, once amended, Schedule 8 will enable a police constable to stop and search a UAS operator or remote pilot who may not be complying with specific aspects of the IR’s risk-based operational framework—one example would be failing to obtain an operational authorisation to fly outside of the “open category”.
The list of offences to which the amendment to Section 93 of the Police Act 1997 applies has also been amended to include, for example, offences relating to the contravention of specified requirements in the IR. As with the other powers in this schedule, the offences to which the amendment to the Police Act will apply are only those that could constitute a serious safety or security risk if, for example, committed near certain sites, such as prisons. Without these amendments, the ability to protect the public, our critical national infrastructure and prisons from unlawful behaviour involving the use of unmanned aircraft would be limited.
I now turn to the amendments to Schedule 9. The purpose of Schedule 9 is to enable constables to obtain information from UAS operators or remote pilots about the lawful basis of a UA flight, for those flights that require a prior step to be lawful; for example, by registering or obtaining a permission. It is necessary to amend the powers in this schedule in light of the ANO amendment, including the circumstances in which the powers can be exercised. Under the IR, there is a wider range of circumstances in which a UAS operator must register, more gradations in levels of remote pilot competency and a number of new ways in which the CAA might grant its consent for a UAS operator to undertake higher-risk operations. It has therefore been necessary to substitute the schedule entirely. However, the policy intention of the schedule remains the same.
The Government consider that the powers in Schedule 9 need to be exercisable where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting, rather than believing, that a particular requirement applies. We believe this is necessary to ensure the purpose of the provisions is not defeated as the rules in the IR are more complex. It is necessary to amend some of the terminology to reflect the scope of the IR and the related terminology. The terms “small unmanned aircraft” and “SUA operator” are no longer used in the ANO, which now refers to “unmanned aircraft” and “UAS operator”. The Bill now refers to “relevant consent” to encompass the broader range of approvals, such as permissions, operational authorisations and certifications, that can now be issued by the CAA.
Schedule 9 is amended so that the powers that the police have in relation to the registration and competency requirements and related offences apply to the new registration and competency offences in the ANO and to the requirements for tethered small UA that the ANO amendment introduced. This means that, in the context of registration and competency, the police can still require a remote pilot to provide evidence of competency and give certain information about the operator, while a UAS operator can be required to provide evidence of registration and give information about the remote pilot.
The amendment also includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out additional types of information and evidence which a constable could require a remote pilot or UAS operator to produce provided that the constable considered it would be reasonable to do so. Schedule 9 is also amended so that the powers that the police have in relation to provision of evidence of relevant consents for certain flights also apply to the new offences brought in by the ANO amendment. For example, the requirement to have an operational authorisation when flying in the specific category.
The power for a constable to inspect a UA has also been amended. The power, if enacted, would previously have been able to be used to ascertain whether registration and competency requirements were applicable to that particular flight and whether the UA had the UAS operator’s registration number displayed on it. Under the proposed amendment, a constable would be able to inspect a UA to ascertain whether any of the other powers in Schedule 9 were exercisable. This will still include circumstances where it is necessary to gain a more accurate assessment of the aircraft’s mass or to see whether the UAS operator’s registration number is displayed. It will now also include, for example, circumstances where a constable needs to check the class marking of a UA. EU Delegated Regulation 2019/945 requires UA put on the market from 1 January 2023 to meet certain product standards and bear markings that indicate which class the aircraft is in. This will, in time, assist a constable to ascertain whether the operation that has been undertaken using the aircraft was permitted under a particular category or subcategory of operation of the IR and to determine whether any further investigation is necessary or whether an offence has been committed.
I once again reassure noble Lords that the amendments to Schedule 9 are essential to ensure it functions as intended in light of the changes flowing from the IR becoming applicable and the changes made to the ANO by the ANO amendment.
Schedule 10 makes provision about fixed penalties for certain offences relating to UA. A minor and technical amendment has been made to paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 10 to change where the new provision created by that paragraph will appear in the ANO. This is necessary because the recent ANO amendment has added more provisions after Article 265 of the ANO.
Finally, Schedule 11 currently contains powers that allow for amendments to Schedule 8 and to Section 13 and Schedule 9 to the Bill—once it is an Act—in light of changes to the ANO, the creation of a new ANO or regulations made under the Act to provide for offences relating to EU-derived legislation. This means that the police powers in this Bill can be used to enforce any new unmanned aircraft offences brought in by any of the above.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I am speaking to this general set of amendments, but I want to speak particularly on disabled safety features on drones. The Bill should make it illegal to fly a drone if any safety features are inoperable or have been disabled. My noble friend Lord Whitty tabled an amendment to this effect in Committee. The Minister’s assurance then was that the safety feature that could be referred to would be electronic conspicuity, the disabling of which would be covered under other provisions. That, we believe, is not the case. Lights, geo-awareness and geo-fencing, software functions that limit altitude, remote ID and various redundancy measures could all be covered under this provision. There are technical requirements for certain systems whereby the user cannot modify them—for example, data associated with remote ID. However, this does not protect against deliberate hacking or intentional disabling of systems. A provision that makes these acts illegal is therefore relevant.
BALPA has engaged directly with staff at the DfT on this point and we are grateful to the Minister’s officials for doing so. We note that the Government believe that sufficient safeguards are already available in the Air Navigation Order to cover this matter, but, overall, we still believe that a specific and separate offence should be created in the Bill. I make these points for the Minister to take on board, as it is highly likely that this sensible and proportionate amendment may be urged when the matter is considered in the other place. I hope the Minister can take this back to the department and reflect on it as the Bill proceeds further.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister on her spirited 12-minute speech, which covered all these amendments.
In the heady days of the 1960s, I went to university for three years. Her Majesty was good enough to teach me to fly in the Royal Air Force. At university, I ran the college bar and happened to get a maths degree. It was useful training, which led me into an airline career. Running the college bar gave me first-hand experience in line management, and I am afraid that the only effect of the maths degree was to make me even more pedantic than I was naturally.
Accordingly, when the Minister was kind enough to send a letter setting out these amendments and where they were, I read it and alighted on some of the words used. She wrote to clarify that these were “largely” technical changes, saying that it is important to note that these amendments, if accepted, will not change the policy intention of the Bill and are, “in most cases”, just making minor but essential changes. Either the words are careless, and the changes are wholly technical—though I believe that there is no such thing in most cases—or some of these amendments are not technical in nature. In her response, can the Minister tell me which of these many amendments is not a technical change but has some substance? Or can she assure me that the words “largely” and “in most cases” should have been omitted from her letter and that all the changes are technical?
I ask for this assurance because we do not have the resources to work through such a large number of amendments. We made an attempt—and I commend our adviser, Ben, who worked through them. He could not find anything that was not minor and technical, but I would value the Minister enlightening me and satisfying my pedantic approach.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I have grappled with all these amendments. I wondered whether what seemed minor and technical to me might seem very significant to someone working in the industry. I thank the Minister and her officials for their thorough briefings. However, this all shines a light on the unsatisfactory situation with this Bill—a major tranche of amendments has been produced because of the time that has elapsed.
I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. They underline the need for a much more comprehensive approach and review. Although my amendment was narrowly lost, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the points I have made and the need to look more comprehensively at this in the near future.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, as ever, the views of BALPA must hold great weight. It is important that safety is at the forefront of our minds, on all these issues. But because this is a diverse, complex and fast-changing subject, only people actually working in the industry are able to spot the problems when they first appear.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I cannot see anything here which is not detailed and technical. Therefore, I have no objections to the amendments.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their short interventions on this debate. Turning first to the comments of my noble friend Lord Balfe, I will, of course, take them back to the department and consider them further.
Turning to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—I see his maths degree and I raise him an engineering degree. And I am the ultimate pedant. However, what is minor and technical to one person is not minor and technical to another; indeed, that was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. When it comes to my letter to him, where I said “in most cases” and “largely”, I think I was just trying to cover my bases. The reality is that they are minor and technical. Where they are slightly not minor and technical—perhaps a bit borderline—I tried to bring that out in my 12-minute speech, particularly where there have been changes. For example, the implementing regulation has introduced some changes from the status quo ante; it is a slightly different regime. I suppose that, although they are technical amendments to make it all match up, perhaps they may be on the large end of minor. But I reassure him that I too have found nothing that I could not describe as minor or technical and, on that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 17
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“Prohibiting aircraft noise over designated sites
Civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet over landscapes designated as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are prohibited, except—(a) any civil aviation aircraft landing at or taking off from civil airports or airfields, and(b) civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet for safety reasons.”
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by apologising to noble Lords and my noble friend the Minister, as I was unable to take part at Second Reading or in Committee. I have, of course, read the Hansard reports of both previous stages.
In moving Amendment 17, standing in my name, let me say at the outset that I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division, and I can see the potential problems if my amendment was actually inserted into the Bill. Nevertheless, I feel the issue merits a short debate.
Aircraft noise caused by low-flying aircraft, particularly if it is frequent, is a major disruption, and, indeed, can be a health issue. Those who live near airports and aerodromes get used to it—not that they can ever ignore it. However, my concern, one that is shared by many who enjoy the pleasures and tranquillity of our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, is that, from time to time, that very peace and quiet is shattered by excessive aircraft noise. This amendment would prohibit civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet over landscapes designated as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, except for any civil aviation aircraft landing at or taking off from civil airports or airfields and civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet for safety reasons. I have chosen 7,000 feet because that is the point at which noise is considered by the CAA to be a pertinent consideration when designing flight paths.
My honourable friend Mr Philip Dunne, the chair of the Environmental Audit Select Committee in the other place, has taken a keen interest in this matter and has asked several Parliamentary Questions exploring the issue. In March last year, he asked
“what provisions are included in the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill … to protect national parks and AONBs from aircraft noise.”
In reply, my honourable friend the Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, said:
“The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an airport, air navigation service provider or another body to take forward an airspace change that is considered necessary for the delivery of the Civil Aviation Authority’s … Airspace Modernisation Strategy.
Any Airspace Change Proposals that are taken forward as a result will be covered by the department’s existing Air Navigation Guidance which is reflected in the CAA’s airspace change process. The guidance for this process states that, where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty … and National Parks.”
That Answer states “where practicable” and “it is desirable”, but I am afraid that that sounds a little weak to me.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has raised this matter, because it is of considerable concern to many people—those who enjoy areas of outstanding natural beauty and, for example, those who run the National Trust. I, too, would like to know what sanctions are available to people who own such areas of land if it becomes apparent that aircraft are not keeping to the guidance provided by the various air traffic orders.
Therefore, I intervene simply to second what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has said. I believe that the mechanisms are there, but what I really want to know is what happens if the rules are not obeyed and what can be done about it.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the raising of this fresh issue. I have had representations from residents in Shropshire about a sudden unexplained increase in aircraft noise in their area. In this case the noise was undoubtedly caused by civilian flights. People who suddenly find themselves underneath flights by the Air Force and the military often understand the need for those, but they may be more concerned about civilian commercial flights.
Even the local councillors could not find the cause. They could not discover where the flights were coming from, or why there had been a sudden increase. Was a new airline operating from a nearby airport? Were the schedules, or the destinations, different? They could not find the answer, and then along came the pandemic, and there was no longer a problem. However, that does not mean that the problem has disappeared for ever, or that it will not be back in the reasonably near future.
Even if that problem does not return in Shropshire, that would not undermine the important principle behind the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for tabling it. Areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks are subject to numerous protections in terms of planning, the natural environment, and the agriculture that can take place within them, but, as I understand it, there is no protection from aircraft noise.
The Bill threatens to make the present vulnerability of such places worse, because airports will now be required to surrender their spare airspace. There might be an airport very close to an AONB but not operating over it simply because there is no commercial incentive to use that route. But now airports are to be asked to give up their spare airspace for use by general aviation, which means that our skies will be even more crowded.
This is an interesting development, at a time when the Government are keen to burnish their environmental credentials. I recommend that they look into this and see whether they can use their new powers to deal with the problem of noise. I urge the Minister to take seriously the suggestion in the amendment that flights below 7,000 feet should be controlled, and allowed only in certain situations.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for his amendment, which, as he said, provides us with an opportunity to debate aircraft noise. I am sure that in her response, the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that. I certainly would not claim to know what all their objectives are on aircraft noise, but I do remember one, although it is unrelated to the specific issue covered in the amendment.
Following the 2017 public consultation on Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the Government said that their objective was to
“limit or reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise at night, including through encouraging the use of quieter aircraft, while maintaining the existing benefits of night flights.”
As we are discussing aircraft noise, it might be interesting if the Minister could provide some information on the specific certifiable progress that has already been made towards achieving that stated government objective, and what specific further objectives and targets the Government have set themselves for the next three years so as to deliver on the objective to which I referred.
On the specific issue raised in this amendment, I am sure that a great many people who visit national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have, at times, been conscious of aircraft flying low overhead. An interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about all the other types of protection that already exist for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In that context, she asked why the goal and objective set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, might not also offer a further protection, in view of how aircraft noise can, at times, diminish the enjoyment that people expect when visiting national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The amendment refers specifically to civil aircraft, but presumably there could be an issue with military aircraft in this context as well.
I support the basic objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks with his amendment. I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will set out the Government’s thinking on aircraft noise, not least on the specific circumstances covered by this amendment and the goals, objectives and targets that the Government have set in this regard.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Randall for tabling this amendment. When we debated this in Committee, noise did not particularly come up. I hope that one of the benefits of airspace modernisation is noise reducing. I am unable to set out in full the Government’s position on noise at airports; if there are any detailed questions, I will write.
However, I want to address the points made and the issues relevant to the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Randall. He is absolutely right, and he read out lots of responses from the Aviation Minister to questions on airspace change proposals, which are covered by the air navigation guidance. Indeed, the guidance states that
“where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks”.
There was a question about sanctions. Obviously, some airports have no option but to send flights over AONBs and national parks. For example, Gatwick is surrounded by them. We are lucky in our country, in that there are a significant number of these things and they are wonderful, but it is simply not possible for them not to be overflown. One might narrow it down to those operating below 7,000 feet, but nearly all commercial aircraft operating below 7,000 feet are taking off or landing. Again, with airspace change proposals, we expect to see the trajectory of both landing and taking off become steeper, which will again reduce noise and limit their impact.
The amendment is unlikely to have a significant impact on the volume of such flights because they are taking off and landing, but it would have a significant impact on general aviation, which would be unable to overfly vast swathes of the UK. Noble Lords will have heard today support for general aviation in government and parts of your Lordships’ House. There is lots to consider about this. It does not mean that the Government want AONBs and national parks to be overflown; we certainly do not. We expect everybody to behave sensibly when flying over such parks.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank other noble Lords for joining in on this short but important debate: the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, hit on the point that has not, perhaps, been completely answered by my noble friend, which is that there has seemingly been a change in overflying at lower heights. It is something that people notice. I live near Heathrow. We do not get much overflying, but we did notice last year, before the pandemic, that there seemed to be a change in patterns. My amendment would have tried to stop not overflying per se but flying below 7,000 feet.
My other concern is the fact that there is no way of registering such low flying and no sanctions that can be applied to an aeroplane that, for whatever reason, flies lower than it should. Clearly, there might be a safety issue or whatever, and I also take the point about take-off and landing, but I do not think that those are the cases that people complain about.
Having listened to the previous debate, as someone with a degree in Serbo-Croat I do not think that I could match the academic qualities of my noble friend, and I would certainly not dream of teaching her to suck eggs. I suggest, however, that when this goes to the other place there will be Members there whose constituents will contact them, and those Members may want answers to some of those questions. I say that as someone who knows that this is the sort of thing that really gets constituents going.
I will leave it at that. I am grateful for my noble friend’s answer. It was not quite as full as I had hoped for, but I am never really disappointed by her answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be consequential on the removal of paragraph 4 of Schedule 11, and its replacement by paragraph 1 of Schedule 11, which would result from other amendments standing in my name. It provides for the cases when draft affirmative Parliamentary procedure is to apply to the exercise of the power in paragraph 1 by regulations under the Act.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment that inserts a new Clause after Clause 11 relating to airport slot allocation. It would provide that the new Clause extends to England and Wales and Scotland only.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“(aa) section (Airport slot allocation);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment that inserts a new Clause after Clause 11 relating to airport slot allocation. It would provide that the new Clause would come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 10 that inserts a new subsection (5A)(which amends section 34 of the Transport Act 2000).
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this Amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Schedule 8: General police powers and prison powers relating to unmanned aircraft
Amendment 22
Lord Tunnicliffe
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 22, in simple terms, allows an appropriate authority to destroy a drone. The Minister has been kind enough to debate this at some length and wrote me a letter on 11 January setting out three points. First, legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists. Secondly, operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable. Thirdly, existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary. I am not being pedantic here, but the words in the last two points, particularly, are of a partial kind. The Minister does not really need to debate reasons two and three with me. When it comes to the third, I know that “existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary”, but it may be necessary. I accept that, “operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable”, as all sorts of second-order effects would have to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the only point I wish to debate is that, “legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists”. In her response, I would like the Minister to convince me of that.
I am aware, through my previous responsibilities, of the impact that can be made with two kilos of Semtex. The potential for a determined terrorist to use a UA for malicious terrorism is real. Such a terrorist coming from a sophisticated organisation would, of course, not have a drone with all the protective devices that a commercially applied drone has. The Gatwick incident showed that the police were then powerless, probably for technical reasons, to stop massive disruption taking place by the use of a drone. It seems to me that if a serious terrorist-like incident were developing, one would want a clear power for the authorities to destroy a drone. The burden rests with the Minister to convince us that the powers that exist are genuinely sufficient to make sure that the authorities, in appropriate circumstances, could destroy a drone in the interests of safety and limiting damage or massive destruction. I beg to move.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, but this is my application to join the pedants’ club, which was advertised somewhat earlier.
The amendment says
“insert ‘destroy the aircraft or’”.
The clause would then read:
“The constable may destroy the aircraft or require a person to ground the aircraft”.
I thought that this was a sort of “Derbyshire Constabulary amendment”, where they go chasing round after people—a constable cannot destroy an aircraft. What would we have? Would we have Derbyshire police with a popgun? I am afraid that it just will not work.
I can see what is meant but I can also see that we need to think this through a bit more thoroughly, particularly the attendant risks that might arise. The power conveyed in this Act could almost certainly be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I speak as a long-standing alternate member of the Council of Europe, and, indeed, as someone who was for some time a chair of its committee on implementation of judgments of the court. Even if the wording were sound, I am not sure that the principle is. You would need a proper judicial process in order to destroy a drone, and you would not be able to do it as an either/or—we will either destroy the drone or make you land it and then we will talk to you. I suggest that the amendment is well meaning but, unfortunately, defective.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, destroying a drone or an unmanned aircraft is a vital mechanism, particularly for dealing with terrorism. The incident at Gatwick at the end of 2019 illustrated for us all that dealing with an intruder drone is a highly complex issue. I invite noble Lords to think back to that and to the discussions that took place in the media, and, much more importantly, behind the scenes, on exactly how to deal with a drone that was causing millions of pounds of economic damage. It was damaging the economy and causing huge individual damage to those unable to fly, yet people were paralysed into inactivity, not least because there was a lack of certainty about powers. There was also a lack of certainty about the ability to destroy the drone effectively and the safety of doing it. All those things were being taken into account.
However, there would be circumstances where destroying a drone would be the simple and clear answer to a threat. I welcome this as an interesting, probing amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I shall listen carefully to the Minister.
Going back to the Gatwick situation, I remind noble Lords that days were spent deciding how to deal with that drone. To this day, we do not know who was flying it. Therefore, the situation was never satisfactorily resolved.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his amendment, which gives the police the power to destroy a UA if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that it has been, or is likely to be, used in the commission of an offence. We have had many a thought-provoking discussion on this, both inside and outside the Chamber. If he will forgive me, I will set out the Government’s stall in full, even though I am aware that he accepts two of the arguments that I am about to put forward.
While I understand the intention behind this amendment, it is critical that all powers in this Bill are necessary and proportionate, and we have worked very hard with the Home Office and the police to ensure that this is the case. Our aspiration for this Bill has always been to ensure that we provide the police with the powers necessary to effectively respond to UA incidents, while ensuring that we do not inadvertently discourage positive UA use in the UK.
I will set out the three key reasons as to why the Government are of the view that this amendment is not required. First—I think that this is the point that the noble Lord needs to be convinced on—from a legal standpoint, the powers to destroy a UA already exist. Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967—the CLA—allows the reasonable use of force in the prevention of crime. This is not police-specific legislation, but it is legislation that the police can, and do, rely on in circumstances where force is required. It would allow a police officer to destroy a UA in extremis if it were deemed necessary, subject to risk assessments.
The powers in this Bill must be necessary and proportionate, and the police assess that Section 3 of the CLA 1967 is sufficient and proportionate in the case of a UA, in line with other areas of policing. This legislation is used for other aspects of policing that require force in the prevention of crime, such as the use of police batons. Therefore, there is no legal requirement to provide for this power in the Bill. Indeed, doing so would set an unusual precedent: why would we specify a drone and not anything else? This could be taken to undermine reliance on the CLA 1967 in other areas.
Secondly, destroying a UA is not generally operationally desirable because there is a need to maintain presentable evidence as part of a police investigation and any subsequent court proceedings. Destroying a UA could render digital and forensic examinations impossible, potentially compromising an investigation.
Thirdly, existing technology is such that destroying a UA is also often unnecessary. The Government’s counter-unmanned aircraft strategy committed to the creation of a new national police counter-unmanned aircraft capability in the UK. This capability makes use of technology that is more sophisticated and does not by necessity result in the destruction of the UA. It relies on defeat countermeasures, known as “effectors” or “jammers”, which have a number of impacts on the UA, such as causing it to return home, landing it or forcing it to hover—the specific outcome depends on the UA programming. These effectors defeat the UA and prevent whatever malicious action it was going to take in a way that is more proportionate, easier for the operator to use and less likely to cause unwarranted collateral damage than the use of technology that destroys the UA.
The noble Lord previously raised a concern that the Bill and the package of related counter-UA measures we are taking would not be impactful in a high-threat UA incident. I will now set out why I believe that the Bill, alongside these other measures, would have sufficient impact. First, our operating procedures across a range of critical national infrastructure sites, such as airports and other key sites such as prisons, are constantly evolving and have significantly improved since the Gatwick 2018 drone incursion. This allows for a faster, more effective response by both the site and the police. The Bill supplements this as it extends the range of public authorities that can be given authorisations to make lawful the use of jamming equipment to counter UA.
Secondly, as I mentioned, the police have new capabilities and counter-UA measures available to them, which provide a step change in our ability to respond to UA incidents, compared to Gatwick 2018. The Bill supplements this by providing the necessary powers for the police to use this capability to its fullest extent.
Thirdly, if an incident occurs that cannot be stopped by either our operating procedures or our police capability, we can use Section 3 of the CLA 1967 to use necessary reasonable force to stop or, where absolutely necessary and proportionate, damage or even destroy the UA.
I hope that, based on the reassurances I have given, noble Lords will be satisfied that this Bill provides the police with sufficient powers to deal with UA offences, and that there are existing powers in law under which the destruction of a UA is, and can be, justified, where it is absolutely necessary in the circumstances. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I listened to that explanation and remain unconvinced that it will not cause significant delay in what would be a fast-moving event and that the police or other appropriate authority would not, in fact, be more effective if they had the power to destroy a drone in a serious emergency situation. However, I have a difficult problem in pressing this any further in that the Minister arranged a meeting with senior Home Office and police people who said that they did not want the power, and if they are not attracted to having it, it would be unreasonable of me to press this further, having failed to convince the Government.
Before I finish, I note that we have done Report in three hours and 30 minutes. An observer of our normal proceedings might say that we have not taken this Bill seriously. In fact, we have taken it very seriously, and I commend the Minister and her people for the enormous amount of time, effort and letter writing they have put in to responding to the many questions and concerns we have put to them. Accordingly, I can assure society in general and anybody watching this event that opposition scrutiny and, as far as I can tell, Liberal Democrat scrutiny of the Bill have been very thorough indeed and very efficiently handled by the Minister and her people, and I thank her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add references to new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
(i) an offence under article”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove a reference to an offence which is revoked by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
“(ii) a relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016, or(iii) a relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add references to new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
(a) an offence under any of these provisions of the ANO 2016—(i) article 94A (certain unmanned aircraft: permission for flights over or near aerodromes);(ii) article 239(4) (prohibited or restricted flying);(iii) article 240 (endangering safety of an aircraft);(iv) article 265A(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to UAS operators);(v) article 265B(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to remote pilots);(b) a relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016;(c) a relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016; or (d) a relevant prison offence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the use of the defined term “relevant ANO offence” from paragraph 2(6) and instead list the offences to be covered. That list includes some new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove sub-paragraph (7) because the interpretation provision would be contained in the new paragraphs 4A to 4F proposed by another amendment standing in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect the replacement of the defined term “relevant offence” with “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” by the new paragraph 4A proposed in another amendment standing in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect the replacement of the defined term “relevant offence” with “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” by the new paragraph 4A proposed in another amendment standing in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect the replacement of the defined term “relevant offence” with “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” proposed by another amendment standing in my name.
“Meaning of “relevant unmanned aircraft offence”
4A_ In this Schedule “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” means—(a) an offence under this Act;(b) any of these offences under the ANO 2016—(i) an offence under article 94A(1), 239(4), 265A(2) or 265B(2) of the ANO 2016;(ii) a relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016;(iii) a relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016;(c) an offence under any of these provisions—(i) section 40C(2) or (3) of the Prison Act 1952;(ii) section 34B(2) or (3) of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953;(iii) section 41 or 41ZA of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989;(d) a Scottish common law prison offence.Meaning of “relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016”
4B_ In this Schedule “relevant offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016” means an offence under article 265B(3) of the ANO 2016 committed by the contravention of a relevant requirement set out or referred to in any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265B(5)(a), (h), (i) or (j);(b) article 265B(6);(c) article 265B(7)(e), but only insofar as that requirement (to comply with authorised limitations and conditions) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight;(d) article 265B(7)(f), (g) or (i); (e) article 265B(8), but only insofar as that requirement (conditions under which operations in the framework of the model aircraft clubs or associations may be conducted) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight.Meaning of “relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016”
4C_ In this Schedule “relevant offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016” means an offence under article 265E(7) of the ANO 2016 committed by the contravention of a relevant requirement set out or referred to in any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265E(2)(a)(vi), (vii) or (viii);(b) article 265E(2)(b)(ix), (x) or (xi);(c) article 265E(5)(a);(d) article 265E(6).Meaning of “relevant prison offence”
4D_ In this Schedule “relevant prison offence” means—(a) an offence under any of these provisions of the Prison Act 1952—(i) section 39 (assisting a prisoner to escape);(ii) section 40B (conveyance etc of List A articles into or out of prison);(iii) section 40C (conveyance etc of List B or C articles into or out of prison);(iv) section 40CB (throwing articles into prison);(b) an offence under any of these provisions of the Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953—(i) section 29(1) (assisting escape from lawful custody);(ii) section 33 (facilitating escape by conveying things into prison);(iii) section 34A (conveyance etc of List A articles into or out of prison);(iv) section 34B (conveyance etc of List B or C articles into or out of prison);(c) an offence under either of these provisions of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989—(i) section 41 (unlawful introduction of proscribed articles into a prison);(ii) section 41ZA (provision to and use by prisoners of personal communication devices);(d) a Scottish common law prison offence.Meaning of “Scottish common law prison offence”
4E_(1) In this Schedule “Scottish common law prison offence” means—(a) an offence at common law in Scotland committed by assisting a prisoner in a penal institution in Scotland in escaping or attempting to escape from the institution;(b) an offence at common law in Scotland committed by, intending to facilitate the escape of a prisoner from a penal institution in Scotland, doing any of the following things—(i) bringing, throwing or otherwise conveying anything into the institution;(ii) causing another person to bring, throw or otherwise convey anything into the institution;(iii) giving anything to a prisoner or leaving anything in any place (whether inside or outside the institution).(2) In this paragraph—“penal institution” has the meaning given by section 108 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016;“prisoner” means a person who is detained or imprisoned in such an institution. Other interpretation
4F_(1) In this Schedule—“article associated with an unmanned aircraft” includes—(a) any component, part or product of an unmanned aircraft, and(b) any equipment, including an electronic device, relating to an unmanned aircraft;“premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—(a) any vehicle;(b) any offshore installation;(c) any renewable energy installation (that expression having the same meaning as in Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004);(d) any tent or movable structure;“property” includes land and buildings;“vehicle” includes any vessel, aircraft (whether or not an unmanned aircraft) or hovercraft.(2) A reference in this Schedule to a provision of subordinate legislation (whenever the reference is passed or made) is a reference to that provision as it has effect from time to time.(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to any contrary provision made in subordinate legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would bring together all of the interpretation provision relating to paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Schedule (including some new interpretation provision) and locate it immediately after paragraph 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would update the reference to the title of article 94A to reflect the change made by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
“(v) article 265A(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to UAS operators);(vi) article 265B(2) (various requirements under the Unmanned Aircraft Implementing Regulation relating to remote pilots);(h) an offence under article 265B(3) of the Air Navigation Order 2016 committed by the contravention of a relevant requirement set out or referred to in any of the following provisions of that Order—(i) article 265B(5)(a), (h), (i) or (j);(ii) article 265B(6);(iii) article 265B(7)(e), but only insofar as that requirement (to comply with authorised limitations and conditions) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight;(iv) article 265B(7)(f), (g) or (i);(v) article 265B(8), but only insofar as that requirement (conditions under which operations in the framework of the model aircraft clubs or associations may be conducted) regulates the operation of an unmanned aircraft during flight.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add references to new offences created by the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove paragraph 7 because the interpretation provision would be contained in the new paragraphs 4A to 4F proposed by another amendment standing in my name.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“SCHEDULEUNMANNED AIRCRAFT: POWERS OF POLICE OFFICERS RELATING TO ANO 2016Provision by remote pilots of evidence of competency
1_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of P’s compliance, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, with a relevant competency requirement.(3) In this paragraph “relevant competency requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265B(5)(b) (open category: having the appropriate competency in the intended sub-category of flight);(b) article 265B(5)(c) (open category: carrying proof of competency);(c) article 265B(7)(b) (specific category: having the appropriate competency);(d) article 265B(7)(c) (specific category: carrying proof of competency);(e) article 265B(8) (specific category: having the appropriate competency specified in the authorisation relating to the flight);(f) article 265E(2)(b)(ii) (tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more: competency).(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide evidence of P’s compliance, as respects an unmanned aircraft and a flight, with a relevant competency requirement,(b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by remote pilots of information about UAS operators
2_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable— (a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of—(a) the person or persons who are or were the UAS operator for the flight, or(b) the person or persons who made the unmanned aircraft available for use by P.(3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” means a requirement imposed by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 265A(5)(a) (open category: registration of UAS operator);(b) article 265A(5)(b) (open category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(c) article 265A(6)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);(d) article 265A(6)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(e) article 265A(7)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);(f) article 265A(7)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(g) article 265A(9)(a) (specific category: registration of UAS operator);(h) article 265A(9)(b) (specific category: display of UAS operator’s registration number);(i) article 265E(1)(a) (registration of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more);(j) article 265E(1)(b) (display of registration number of tethered small unmanned aircraft of 250g or more).(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, information as to the identity of a person,(b) P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight,(c) the relevant registration requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the UAS operator for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and(d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by UAS operators of evidence of registration
3_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and (ii) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of P’s compliance, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, with a relevant registration requirement.(3) In this paragraph “relevant registration requirement” has the same meaning as in paragraph 2.(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide evidence of P’s compliance, as respects the flight, with a relevant registration requirement,(b) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the relevant registration requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by UAS operators of information about remote pilots
4_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot for the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of the person or persons who are or were the remote pilot or remote pilots of the unmanned aircraft for the flight.(3) In this paragraph “relevant competency requirement” has the same meaning as in paragraph 1.(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide information as to the identity of a person,(b) P is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight,(c) the relevant competency requirement which the constable had reasonable grounds for suspecting is or was applicable as respects the remote pilot for the unmanned aircraft and the flight is or was so applicable, and(d) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information of the kind which the constable required P to provide.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision by remote pilots or UAS operators of other information etc
5_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that— (a) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide such information, documentation or evidence that is of a specified description as the constable considers reasonable.(3) In this paragraph “specified description” means a description specified by the Secretary of State by regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.(4) Regulations under this paragraph that specify a description of information, documentation or evidence may provide for conditions that must be met before a constable may require P to provide information, documentation or evidence that is within that description.(5) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide information, documentation or evidence,(b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) at the time when the constable imposed the requirement, P could have provided information, documentation or evidence of the kind which the constable required P to provide.(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(7) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision of evidence of consents for certain flights
6_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a provision of the ANO 2016 is or was being contravened unless a relevant consent is or was applicable as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of a relevant consent.(3) In this paragraph “relevant consent” means a permission, operational authorisation, LUC, authorisation or certification required by, or referred to in, any of the following provisions of the ANO 2016—(a) article 94A (permission for flights over or near aerodromes);(b) article 265A(1)(b) (operational authorisation, LUC with appropriate privileges, or authorisation);(c) article 265A(1)(c) (certification of UAS and UAS operator);(d) article 265B(1)(b) (operational authorisation, LUC with appropriate privileges, or authorisation);(e) article 265B(1)(c) (certification of UAS and UAS operator);(f) article 265E(3) (tethered small unmanned aircraft: permission from CAA).(4) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects a flight by an unmanned aircraft, evidence of a relevant consent, (b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the relevant consent is or was applicable as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(6) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Provision of evidence of exemptions for certain flights
7_(1) A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—(a) has reasonable grounds for believing that—(i) a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and(ii) P is or was, as respects the flight, the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft, and(b) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a provision of the ANO 2016 is or was being contravened unless an ANO exemption is or was applicable as respects—(i) a person and the unmanned aircraft and the flight, or(ii) the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(2) The constable may require P to provide, as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, such evidence as the constable considers reasonable of an ANO exemption.(3) In this paragraph “ANO exemption” means an exemption under article 266 of the ANO 2016.(4) The evidence which a constable may require a person to provide under this paragraph includes evidence of the applicability of an ANO exemption to a person, or the unmanned aircraft, as respects the flight.(5) P is guilty of an offence if—(a) P without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide, as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight, or as respects the unmanned aircraft and the flight, evidence of an ANO exemption,(b) P is or was the remote pilot or the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft for the flight, and(c) the ANO exemption is or was applicable as respects—(i) P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight, or(ii) the unmanned aircraft and the flight.(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.(7) Paragraph 10 includes a defence to the offence under this paragraph.Power to inspect unmanned aircraft in connection with other powers
8_(1) A constable may require a person in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether a power conferred by any of paragraphs 1 to 7 is exercisable.(2) A constable may if necessary use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising the power conferred by this paragraph.(3) A person who fails to comply with a requirement imposed under this paragraph is guilty of an offence.(4) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.Offence of providing false or misleading information etc
9_(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) anything that the person provides under this Schedule is false or misleading in a material respect, and(b) the person either—(i) knows that it is false or misleading, or(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false or misleading.(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.Provision of information etc at a police station
10_(1) A person (P) may comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under any of paragraphs 1 to 7 by providing what the constable required at a police station specified by P at the time when the constable imposed the requirement (the “nominated police station”)—(a) within seven days beginning with the day after which the constable imposed the requirement, or(b) if it is not reasonably practicable to do so within that seven day period, as soon after the end of that period as is reasonably practicable.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under any of paragraphs 1 to 7 in respect of a failure to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to provide what the constable required at the nominated police station before the day on which the proceedings were commenced.(3) For that purpose, the proceedings against a person for an offence are commenced when—(a) in the case of proceedings in England and Wales—(i) an information is laid for the offence,(ii) the person is charged with the offence under Part 4 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or(iii) a written charge is issued against the person for the offence under section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;(b) in the case of proceedings in Scotland, a complaint is served on the person in respect of the offence;(c) in the case of proceedings in Northern Ireland—(i) a summons or warrant is issued under Article 20 of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 in respect of the person and the offence,(ii) a summons is issued under section 93 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 in respect of the person and the offence, or(iii) the person is charged with the offence after being taken into custody without a warrant.Interpretation
11_(1) In this Schedule the following expressions have the same meanings as in the ANO 2016 (see Schedule 1 to the ANO 2016)—“remote pilot”;“UAS operator”.(2) A reference in this Schedule to a provision of subordinate legislation (whenever the reference is passed or made) is a reference to that provision as it has effect from time to time.(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to any contrary provision made in subordinate legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace Schedule 9 with a new Schedule. A new regulatory regime for unmanned aircraft under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 has come into effect. The police powers in Schedule 9 now need to relate to that regime. Since this amendment was originally tabled, paragraph 7 has been altered (by the addition of paragraph (5)(c)).
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“(3) After article 265F of the ANO 2016 insert—“Fixed penalty offences265G. In the case of an offence under any provision of”Member’s explanatory statement
The Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020 includes provision adding into the ANO 2016 new provisions which provide for offences. This amendment would move the new provision made by paragraph 2(3) so that it comes after those new offences.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make any amendment of this Act which is authorised by sub-paragraph (3) or (4).(3) The Order in Council or regulations may make such amendments of Schedule 8 as the appropriate authority considers appropriate for or in connection with—(a) maintaining the effect of a provision of that Schedule in a case where it would otherwise cease to be effective because of provision made in any relevant subordinate legislation; or(b) extending a provision of that Schedule to apply to an offence relating to unmanned aircraft under relevant subordinate legislation to which the provision does not already apply.(4) The Order in Council or regulations may make such amendments of section 13 and Schedule 9 as the appropriate authority considers appropriate for or in connection with—(a) maintaining the effect of a provision of that section or Schedule in a case where it would otherwise cease to be effective because of provision made in any relevant subordinate legislation;(b) extending a provision of that section or Schedule to apply to an offence relating to unmanned aircraft under relevant subordinate legislation to which the provision does not already apply; or(c) conferring, in consequence of provision made in any relevant subordinate legislation, a police power that corresponds to a power conferred by Schedule 9 as enacted.(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(c) each of the following police powers “corresponds to a power conferred by Schedule 9 as enacted”—(a) a power to require a person who the constable has reasonable grounds for believing is or was the remote pilot of an unmanned aircraft for a flight (“A”)—(i) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to A’s compliance with any requirement relating to A’s competency to be the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight; (ii) to provide information relating to the identity of a person who is or was the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft, or made the unmanned aircraft available to A, for the flight;(iii) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the existence of a consent which is or was required for the flight; or(iv) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the application to the flight of an exemption from a requirement which would otherwise be applicable to the flight;(b) a power to require a person who the constable has reasonable grounds for believing is or was the UAS operator of an unmanned aircraft for a flight (“B”)—(i) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to B’s compliance, as respects the flight, with any requirement relating to registration of B as the UAS operator of the unmanned aircraft;(ii) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to B’s compliance, as respects the flight, with any requirement relating to registration of the unmanned aircraft;(iii) to provide information relating to the identity of a person who is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight;(iv) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the existence of a consent which is or was required for the flight;(v) to provide information, documentation or other evidence relating to the application to the flight of an exemption from a requirement which would otherwise be applicable to the flight;(c) a power to require a person who is in possession of an unmanned aircraft to allow the constable to inspect it—(i) if the constable considers that the inspection would assist the constable in deciding whether any other power conferred by Schedule 9 is exercisable;(ii) for the purpose of checking whether a requirement to display any number, mark or information on the unmanned aircraft is being complied with.(6) The provision that may be made under sub-paragraph (4)(c) in connection with conferring a police power includes—(a) provision authorising a constable to use reasonable force in the exercise of the power;(b) provision for a person to be guilty of an offence if the person—(i) does not comply with a requirement imposed by a constable in the exercise of the power, or(ii) knowingly or recklessly provides a constable exercising the power with information, documentation or evidence that is false or misleading in a material respect.(7) In this paragraph—“appropriate authority” means—(a) Her Majesty, in relation to an Air Navigation Order;(b) the Secretary of State, in relation to regulations;“relevant subordinate legislation” means—(a) an Air Navigation Order;(b) regulations made under paragraph 3 of this Schedule;(c) regulations made under Article 57 or 58 of the UK Basic Regulation;(d) regulations made under Article 15 of the UK Implementing Regulation;“remote pilot”, in relation to an unmanned aircraft, means a person (however described) conducting the flight of the unmanned aircraft (including a person who is a remote pilot within the meaning of the ANO 2016 — see Schedule 1 to the ANO 2016);“UAS operator”, in relation to an unmanned aircraft, means a person (however described) who is the operator of the unmanned aircraft (including a person who is a UAS operator within the meaning of the ANO 2016 — see Schedule 1 to the ANO 2016).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a single power in place of the powers currently in paragraphs 1 and 4. That single power would be wider than the current Bill powers insofar as it can be used to amend Schedule 9. It would allow the police powers there to be replaced with new powers of the same kind (eg. if the regulatory regime relating to unmanned aircraft is replaced).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would be consequential on the changes to paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 made by the amendment standing in my name. It provides for the cases when draft affirmative Parliamentary procedure is to apply to the exercise of the power in paragraph 1 in an Air Navigation Order.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out sub-paragraph (7), because an equivalent power is already available under paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
(b) the UK Implementing Regulation or provision made under that Regulation;(c) regulations made under Article 57 or 58 of the UK Basic Regulation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for the creation of offences or civil penalties to enforce compliance with requirements imposed by regulations made under the UK Delegated or Implementing Regulation or regulations made under Article 57 or 58 of the UK Basic Regulation.
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would remove paragraph 4 because it is replaced by paragraph 1 as amended by the amendment standing in my name.
““UK Basic Regulation” means Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2018 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/ 2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts the definition of “UK Basic Regulation”.
“and a reference to the UK Basic Regulation, the UK Delegated Regulation or the UK Implementing Regulation is to that Regulation as it forms part of domestic law on and after IP completion day and as amended from time to time.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that references to these three instruments will be “ambulatory”— that is, the references will catch any amendments made to those instruments in their “domesticated” form as retained EU law.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Government amendment that inserts a new Clause after Clause 11 relating to airport slot allocation. It would amend the long title of the Bill to additionally include a reference to airport slot allocation.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Thursday 28th January 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 98-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (18 Jan 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
In moving that the Bill do now pass, I shall make some brief observations and reflect on its passage. At the outset, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his patience, focus and good humour in scrutinising the Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her very valued input. I also thank the cadre of noble Lords who showed a particular interest in this very important Bill and shared so much of their experience and wisdom in scrutinising it. Contributions and questions from all sides were thorough and searching. We listened to concerns and made changes where needed, and we have a better Bill for it.
The Bill has had a rather longer gestation than I would have liked, but that was to be expected in the circumstances. Having been introduced to your Lordships’ House in January 2020, it entered an unprecedented period which has thrown numerous challenges at the Bill and, of course, the aviation industry. However, the Government are clear that the powers in the Bill remain critical, even in the current Covid-19 context. The need to modernise the UK’s airspace has not changed, and the Bill will help reduce aircraft noise, reduce traffic delays and support the aviation industry’s recovery and growth. Additionally, there are emissions savings from modernisation.
It has been 20 years since the establishment of an economic regulatory regime for the provision of en-route air traffic control services. The Bill will modernise regulatory provisions relating to air traffic services, provided by NATS (En Route) plc, or NERL, and regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, ensuring that the framework remains fit for purpose and continues to build on the UK’s excellent safety record. Following Report, the Bill now also enables the Government to continue to provide alleviation from the requirement to use slots at co-ordinated airports 80% of the time for them to be retained. These powers will be temporary, until August 2024, and I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on these amendments. It was far from ideal to bring these amendments to your Lordships’ House before Report; however, Covid-19 has provided many unexpected twists and turns.
Finally, the Bill will give the police new powers to enforce the existing law surrounding unmanned aircraft to ensure the skies above us are safe without damaging the unmanned aircraft industry. There are, as ever, many people beyond your Lordships’ House who have helped shape the Bill—the CAA, NATS, the police and others across government—and, of course, we have a fantastic and more than a little patient Bill team who have had to shepherd the Bill through interesting times. I am very grateful for their hard work and persistence.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Speaking for myself and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and all her officials and colleagues involved with the Bill for their willingness to have informal meetings to discuss, in an open and helpful way, a range of complex issues relating to the Bill as a whole and Parts 1 and 2 in particular. This has greatly contributed to effective scrutiny, needed technical amendments and useful clarifications and amplifications, including those read into Hansard by the—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has been cut off, so we will proceed with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and return to the noble Lord if we can.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister and her officials for the time and patience they have devoted to explaining the Bill and, in particular, the many amendments. I am very grateful to them, as I am to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, and all noble Lords who added their expertise to our debates.
This Bill is, I believe, the third recent attempt at aviation legislation. On Report, I called the Bill a bit of a mess: it is, indeed, an extraordinary saga, worthy of featuring in one of the excellent briefings we get from our Library about historic aspects of our proceedings. There can rarely have been a year between Committee and Report on a Bill, and certainly not a year of such momentous events. Covid and Brexit have both had a profound effect on aviation, and technological development meant that drone capability has greatly increased.
There are now three elements to the Bill; it started with only two. The modernisation of airspace seemed urgent a year ago—less so now that flights are at a fraction of previous numbers. However, concerns remain for airport operators about the conflict between the CAA’s new enforcement powers and other aspects of their role. There are concerns about the financial costs of modernisation at a time when airports have suffered severely financially, and concern about the requirement to release so-called spare airspace capacity for general aviation.
The wholly new section on slot waivers is a direct result of the pandemic and is welcome in order to avoid environmentally damaging ghost flights, but I remain concerned and hope that the Government will make sure that in future the rules are tightened to ensure fair competition and fair prices for consumers.
The section on unmanned aircraft has been subject to wholesale rewriting because of the changed legal situation. However, it is still far too narrow in scope, concentrating on new police powers rather than on the modern capabilities of drone technology and how drones should be used safely and effectively.
My amendment, which would have ensured a wholesale review, narrowly failed to secure a majority. However, I hope that the Minister and her colleagues will take that approach in the near future, because BALPA, our airports and airlines, as well as many drone manufacturers and commercial operators, believe that more is needed on this. The Bill now goes to the other place and I am sure that many Members there will pick up on the issues that I have referred to.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, from the Cross Benches, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, and the Bill team. I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak.
As others have pointed out, the Bill must have gained an entry in the Guinness book of records. It started life in your Lordships’ House with its First and Second Readings over a year ago. After Committee in early February, it sat month after Covid month in the pending tray, then, at the last minute, the Bill team had to drag it swiftly into a new framework—one created by that large amendment to ANO 2016 that took effect so close to Report. However much forewarned, it cannot have been a straightforward task to draft and present so faultlessly the plethora of government amendments required to bring the Bill up to date. That was a great effort that all should admire.
For the noble Baroness herself, it must have been a considerable challenge to master her brief on this complex subject so fully and comprehensively, and I pay tribute to her, too. I admit to having been something of a thorn in her side, but she willingly and courteously exchanged, both on and off the Floor, on our respective views. In her reply to my amendment on Report, she got one point spot on: she said that she suspected that I might not be reassured.
I expect the issue to resurface, but honest differences are the meat and drink of legislation. Given the complexity of this subject, the noble Baroness earns credit for her steady determination. When discussing drones a year ago in Committee, she said, referring to the future of manned and unmanned aircraft traffic management, that it would be
“a whole new world of pain.”—[Official Report, 10/2/20; col. 2111.]
I hope that the passage of the Bill has not been too painful for her. From the Cross Benches, I thank her and the Bill team for their efforts.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who I think is back in contact.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I am afraid that I have little alternative but to start again from the beginning, because I do not know at what stage I got cut off, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for that.
Speaking both for myself and for my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and all her officials and colleagues involved with the Bill for their helpful approach and willingness to have informal meetings to discuss in an open and constructive way a range of complex issues relating to the Bill as a whole and Parts 1 and 2 in particular. That has greatly contributed to effective scrutiny, needed amendments and useful clarifications and amplifications, including those read into Hansard by the Minister on Report. I know that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe has been particularly appreciative of this way of working with the Minister and her team. It has undoubtedly resulted in a better Bill.
I also thank Ben Wood in our office for all his hard work, which has been of real value to me and to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on the Bill. Our thanks go, too, to all other Members of your Lordships’ House and outside organisations with whom we have worked, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
As has been said, the Bill has not had the quickest of passages through the House. It started out in your Lordships’ House a year ago around the time when, as I remember it, I was temporarily out of action. It now goes to the other place for their consideration, and I am quite sure that the work that we have all done on the Bill will assist its passage through the Commons.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I of course note the points raised and look forward to further debate in the coming months on matters relating to aviation and unmanned aircraft. With that, I think we are done: the Bill is clear for take-off.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 2nd February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 98-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (18 Jan 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill deals with air traffic management and unmanned aircraft, which I am sure will be of great interest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to all Members of the House as we look towards the future of aviation.
The UK aviation sector is a global leader, and for an island nation it plays a vital role in connecting us to the rest of the world. It is an engine of trade and investment. It allows business to connect and tourists to visit all parts of the UK, and lets our citizens explore the world, and visit family and friends. Aviation has long been at the heart of the United Kingdom’s economic success, which is why the Government’s most immediate priority is to combat covid-19 and get the aviation sector safely up and running once again. We must also look to, and prepare for, the future. Aviation will recover, and it will grow, and grow sustainably, over the years and decades ahead. As passenger demand recovers, it is more important than ever to consider ways to future-proof our air space, which is a key part of our national transport infrastructure.
The Bill will introduce measures to support the much needed modernisation of our airspace, update the air traffic licensing framework to bring it in line with best practice, provide alleviation from the requirement to use slots at co-ordinated airports 80% of the time for them to be retained in the following scheduling period, and provide greater enforcement powers to help the police to tackle the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft.
Airspace modernisation is a critical infrastructure programme of national importance. The benefits of redesigning these motorways in the sky are significant for all those who use and are affected by airspace. The UK’s airspace is some of the most complex in the world, yet there has been little change to its overall structure since the 1950s. Upgrading it is essential to open up airspace for all users, including general aviation flyers and new types of aircraft such as drones or, as they are properly called, unmanned aircraft.
The Bill will limit the aircraft noise experienced by local communities, and reduce traffic delays when demand returns. Without change, predictions show that by 2030 a third of flights could be unnecessarily delayed by an average of 30 minutes, which is 72 times higher than in 2015. Critically, the emissions savings that modernisation will deliver are a key component of the UK’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050.
Unquestionably, 2020 was the toughest ever year for commercial aviation, but the need for modernisation has not changed. It is a long-term programme to future-proof against long-term demand, growth and change. However, the route to modernisation will change. In view of the pandemic and its effects on the aviation industry, most airports have temporarily paused their work on airspace change. But there will come a time, in the not-too-distant future, I hope, when the airspace change programme will be revitalised. The provisions in part 1 of the Bill will be critical to the success of that programme when that time comes.
The UK’s airspace is highly interdependent, particularly over the south-east region. For airspace change to take place, airports or other persons involved in airspace change have to work together and take account of the needs of neighbouring airports as well as their own. If one airport pulls out, it could delay the whole modernisation programme. Should that situation occur, neither the Government nor the Civil Aviation Authority currently has the powers to guarantee that airspace change is taken forward. Given the complex and interdependent nature of the airspace change proposals required for modernisation, the powers in the Bill are necessary to avoid any sponsor holding up another airspace change proposal or, potentially, the whole programme.
The current challenges facing the aviation sector are extraordinary, so let me reassure Members that the powers in part 1 of the Bill are only intended to be used as a last resort if airspace changes are not taken forward voluntarily or at the requisite pace. The Government do not intend to use these powers where delays are due to factors outside a sponsor’s control—for example, as a result of covid-19. The Bill also contains procedural safeguards for the potential recipient of a direction to progress or co-operate in an airspace change proposal—an ACP—designed to ensure that any direction is proportionate and robustly justified.
I turn to part 2 of the Bill. It has been more than 20 years since the establishment of an economic regulatory regime for the provision of en route air traffic control services. During that time, the technological and economic landscape of air traffic services has changed dramatically. The provisions in part 2 will modernise the regulatory regime for the provision of en route air traffic services provided by NATS En Route plc—or NERL, as it called —and regulated by the CAA. That will ensure that the framework remains fit for purpose and continues to build on the UK’s excellent safety record.
The Bill will allow the CAA to take a more direct and independent approach. It will enable changes to licence conditions considered necessary to protect consumers and respond to changes in air traffic services over time. It also updates the enforcement and penalties regime to ensure that the CAA can effectively regulate NERL in the interests of users and consumers. That includes the introduction of proportionate sanctions, which brings the regulatory regime into line with other modern regulatory systems.
Part 2 of the Bill also includes provisions relating to airport slot alleviation specifically in response to the covid-19 pandemic. The alleviation of slots at capacity-constrained airports is governed by retained EU regulation 95/93. There are eight slot co-ordinated or level 3 airports in the UK: Birmingham, Bristol, Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton, Manchester and Stansted. Regulation 95/93 requires airlines with allocated slots at level 3 airports to use those slots at least 80% of the time in the preceding scheduling period in order to retain their slot in the upcoming equivalent period. In ordinary circumstances, that 80:20 rule, or “use it or lose it” rule, encourages the efficient use of scarce airport capacity, while allowing airlines a degree of flexibility in their operations. However, owing to the unprecedented impact of covid-19, the European Commission waived the 80:20 rule for the summer 2020 season. That was subsequently extended to cover winter 2020-21. The UK supported the European Commission’s position. That alleviation has helped to protect future connectivity and airline finances and reduce the risk of ghost flights being run to retain slots, with all the consequent environmental impact and unnecessary expenditure that that would have.
However, it is with regret that the Government anticipate that the effects of covid-19 on the aviation industry will continue for some time to come. Passenger demand is not predicted to return to 2019 levels until at least 2023, and the retained powers of regulation 95/93 were expressly limited to 2 April 2021. Part 2 therefore provides the Secretary of State with a power, exercisable until 24 August 2024, to waive the 80:20 rule beyond 2 April 2021. It also includes a power to set alternative ratios to the 80:20 rule for a specified scheduling period or season, and allows the Secretary of State to apply conditions to an alleviation of the 80:20 rule, such as by setting a deadline for the return of slots not intended for operation. As we expect disruption to air travel to continue for several years, it is imperative that the UK has the necessary powers at its disposal to provide alleviation beyond the summer 2021 season should the evidence suggest that it is warranted.
I now turn to part 3. Hon. Members will have seen the positive uses of unmanned aircraft, often referred to as drones, during the covid-19 pandemic, such as trialling the flying of medical supplies to the Isle of Mull and the Isle of Wight. The Government are committed to harnessing the positive impacts of unmanned aircraft and supporting this growing industry, but it must be done in a way that protects the safety and security of people, other aircraft, and sensitive sites. The careless, inconsiderate and malicious use of drones and other unmanned aircraft continues to pose a safety risk to others.
The provisions in part 3 therefore provide new and additional police powers to tackle the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft. The police will be able to issue a fixed penalty notice for less serious offending—for example, where a person had flown too close to uninvolved people but not caused, or intended to cause, any harm. They will also be given the necessary powers to require an unmanned aircraft to be grounded, to use stop and search, and to enter and search premises under warrant for certain offences relating to unmanned aircraft.
In addition, we are providing for the use of counter-unmanned aircraft technology that interferes with property or wireless telegraphy for the purposes of detecting and preventing certain offences involving unmanned aircraft. We are adding the civil nuclear constabulary and senior management for prisons to the list of those who can authorise the use of this technology, allowing them better to protect sites such as nuclear sites and prisons. The provisions in part 3 have been developed with the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs Council on behalf of UK police forces. They will address operational gaps in police powers and ensure that offenders who use unmanned aircraft for unlawful purposes are dealt with more effectively and appropriately in order to maintain public safety and security.
In summary, this Bill will future-proof the aviation sector by creating simpler and more efficient routes, reduce congestion while assisting aviation to meet its climate change targets, and ensure the safe use of our skies. At a time when we are so often concerned with the cares of the present, this is an opportunity to shape the future of aviation. I warmly welcome the House’s attention to the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Mr Kane, let me say that some very sad news has broken that Captain Sir Tom Moore has sadly died. On behalf of the House of Commons, can I pass on our deepest condolences to his family? He brought joy to the nation. He was an inspiration to everybody in this country, and his achievement was properly recognised by a knighthood, which was movingly presented by Her Majesty the Queen in person at a special ceremony. I know that the entire nation will mourn his passing.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is very sad news indeed. Some people are born great, some people achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. I think Sir Tom was probably all three of those things; I am sure the Minister will concur when he comes back to the Dispatch Box a little later. He was an inspiration to the whole nation at a time of crisis, and a real candle in the gloom for the British people. I wholeheartedly concur with your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is great that you are chairing this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know personally of your aviation expertise. You have been a great support to me, as the constituency MP for Manchester airport over the years, as I chaired the friends of Manchester airport group. I have been genuinely grateful for all your help throughout that time.
Turning to the matter at hand, I must first thank Members of the other place for their tireless and diligent work in getting this important Bill through to this stage. It was certainly a long process there, but we can all largely agree that it was well worth it in the end. As the Minister has said, the Bill will grant the Government powers to modernise UK airspace, update the licensing of air traffic control and give police new powers over the misuse of drones. Those three areas have all been in need of updating in recent years, so I am pleased to support the Bill receiving its Second Reading today and look forward to it completing its remaining stages.
I share the Minister’s ambition for airspace modernisation. The country has essentially been managing its airspace with analogue technology from the previous century, with piecemeal updates as demand ballooned over the past few decades—an analogue system in a digital age.
I commend the Civil Aviation Authority, which is nearing its 50th anniversary, for everything it has done and continues to do to maintain exemplary safety standards in the sector, such that, as the now-cliched line goes, the riskiest part of flying has become going to and from the airport. Our creaking airspace management has many inefficiencies, most importantly constraints on the volume of flights and needless burning of extra fuel as jets circle round and round before landing. Clearly, few of us need convincing that modernising the airspace should be a priority, and the Bill provides the Department for Transport with powers to ensure that that happens. I fully support that principle.
The second part of the Bill, which involves the regulation of air traffic control services, is also welcome, though the circumstances that brought it about are not: two recent air traffic system failures, a voice communication system failure in December 2013 and a computer system failure in December 2014. I was thankful that there were no accidents or safety concerns over the handling of the incidents themselves.
The Minister and I have discussed airport slots at length, including during consideration of a recent statutory instrument on the temporary extension of a waiver on slot regulations owing to the covid-19 pandemic. I am content that the Bill, through clause 12, will continue to provide the Government with the tools to tackle airport slot allocations issues arising from the pandemic.
The third part of the Bill—providing further police powers over the use of unmanned aircraft—is long overdue. As technology has moved on, drones have become more common, and it was only a matter of time before an incident such as that at Gatwick airport in 2018 disrupted air traffic. Such incidents and others, at prisons and elsewhere, will only increase if the use of drones is not more adequately policed. I therefore welcome the additional police powers in the Bill.
We support the principles in the Bill, but there are a few areas of concern, which I hope to work on with the Minister and Members in Committee. Principally, I have concerns about the scope of the powers that will be conferred on the Secretary of State for Transport by part 1; the Minister referred to that in his speech. If a specific definition of the Government’s enforcement powers is not set down, this Department, or a future Department, might be able to use them for other airspace purposes. That issue was raised by the Airport Operators Association and I ask the Minister to address it. Why is the scope of the power so broad?
The second issue, bluntly, is where the money will come from for this airspace change programme. I understand that this is not a money Bill and things might have changed recently, but ACOG—the Airspace Change Organising Group, which is managing this ambitious modernisation programme—has not received full funding promised by the Government to proceed with its work. The Minister might care to address that point.
It is necessary to acknowledge that capital spending is at a record low in an aviation sector that has been so thoroughly gutted by the covid-19 pandemic. It may be a step too far to require airports to stump up the cash for this at the current time. It seems to me that the Government could start the process. Has the Minister considered funding phase 1 of the programme? Is he looking at mechanisms to finance this vital airspace change programme?
Finally for today, I would like to raise a query about the Bill providing the police with greater powers to enforce unmanned aircraft safety. My concerns are that this is not matched with the appropriate resource to effectively use these new powers. While this is out of the scope of the Bill, I ask the Minister what further steps he and his Department will take to ensure that the correct investment and resource are made available by Government. I look forward to working with the Minister and Members of the House to bring this important and timely Bill through to the next stages.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
I am very pleased to be able to speak on this Bill, because London Luton airport employs a great number of my constituents. The town of Leighton Buzzard and the villages of Heath and Reach, Billington, Stanbridge, Tilsworth, Eaton Bray and, in particular, Whipsnade, Studham and Kensworth are all overflown by planes coming in to land at London Luton airport. Indeed, I see them from my garden. I was delighted to learn on Friday that London Luton airport is able to claim up to £8 million from the airport and ground operations support scheme. That is much needed and very good news for our area.
I initiated the Westminster Hall debate on the work of the Jet Zero Council on 14 October last year. It was during my research for that debate that I realised the contribution of airspace modernisation to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. I met the Airspace Change Organising Group, which first alerted me to the fact that flight paths are now part of our critical national infrastructure and are, as the Minister said, highways in the sky. However, I would be grateful if he can confirm that the ACOG will get the money it needs to finish the job. I think the matter may be with our friends at the Treasury, and if he wants some assistance with that, I am sure that we would all be delighted to give him a hand.
If we get airspace change right, there are huge benefits to be realised. As the Minister said, aircraft frequently fly further than necessary on routes that follow sub-optimal climb and descent profiles, burning more fuel and creating additional greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental benefits of getting this right are enormous. Aircraft will be able to fly more direct routes, with quicker climbs to energy-efficient cruising altitudes and later descents to help to reduce emissions as well as provide opportunities to reduce the noise footprint on the ground. That will be hugely welcomed by many of my constituents, as indeed will the work of Dame Ann Dowling’s silent aircraft initiative in Cambridge.
Upgrading our airspace is a key part of building back better and contributing to a cleaner recovery for the UK economy. Current forecasts show that modernising airspace in the UK offers the potential to reduce future aviation emissions by up to 20%—a fifth—by 2050, which would be one of the most substantive contributions. It is also crucial for supporting the UK’s economic recovery from the pandemic. It will ensure that our future air transport networks deliver the necessary resilience to shocks and the efficiency to underpin aviation’s vital role in driving the UK’s global connectivity and economic recovery.
For the millions of passengers who will return to the skies in the future, upgrading UK airspace will help to prevent potential delays, reduce congestion and make travel easier and more efficient for us all. As the Minister said—and it bears repetition—failure to take action would mean that one in three flights arriving or leaving an airport was likely to be delayed by an average of half an hour by 2030. That would be 72 times worse than it was in 2015 and would be very damaging for passengers, businesses and the environment.
The airspace change programme will also strengthen the sustainability, resilience and competitiveness of regional air travel, which serves towns and cities throughout the United Kingdom. Regional air travel is a very important enabler for a balanced economic recovery, empowering local tourism, business, and international trade. I want us to get to jet zero as soon as possible, which is why the work of the new Whittle laboratory in Cambridge and companies such as Zero Avia, which is based in Bedfordshire and completed the world’s first hydrogen passenger flight last September, are so important. Sustainable aviation fuels obviously play a key role, as well.
The airspace change programme will also enable the United Kingdom to integrate seamlessly into the global system, and it is essential to accommodate unmanned aircraft systems and electric urban mobility aircraft as well. I want to ask the Minister about the UK’s plans for satellite air traffic control, because I understand from Dr Adam Camilletti of the Whittle laboratory that aircraft can now be tracked anywhere in the world by orbiting satellites, which until recently was only possible when they were close to a land-based air traffic control. Specifically, this means that aircraft can be actively rerouted, allowing them to use the jet stream more optimally and avoid areas where aircraft-induced clouds are most harmful. The separation between aircraft over the oceans can also be reduced, which would allow planes to use the jet stream more efficiently. What is really important is that these changes could significantly reduce the climate effects of aviation in the relatively short term.
The relevance of these new possibilities is that, as the Government now own OneWeb, that system could be used as a global aircraft tracking constellation. This would allow the United Kingdom to show leadership in tackling climate change while capitalising on our investment in OneWeb. I am aware that the UK national air traffic systems are already pioneering a similar approach with a Canadian company, Aireon. If the UK has first-mover advantage with this satellite technology, we could create a lot of jobs, which has never been more necessary than as we emerge from this pandemic. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address this issue in his closing remarks.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
On behalf of the SNP, I very much echo the comments about Captain Sir Tom Moore. He led an extraordinary life with an absolutely wonderful finale, and his work over this past year will never be forgotten. My condolences to his family and friends.
I welcome the fact that the legislation to put airspace change and modernisation on a statutory footing is finally before us, and I agree with any extension of the 80/20 slots rule as well. I would prefer it, however, if other factors such as employment conditions were also used as criteria when allocating slots. I also welcome the increase in powers for the police and prison officers to tackle drone flights. While drone supply flights into prisons is not currently a big problem in Scotland, it is growing, with more than half of Scottish prisons recording incidents involving drones, as well as evidence from the recovery of drug packages that other flights are going undetected.
The carnage caused by drug addiction in wider society is magnified still further in prison. Drone technology has allowed those who profit from this misery to evade security measures in our prisons, so giving the police and prison authorities the power to intervene and stop the supply at its source is a welcome development that will receive approval from the Scottish Parliament after Royal Assent. I also hope there will be improved investment for police forces and the Prison Service in England and Wales, to allow them to use these powers properly and proportionately, and allowing Scotland the Barnett consequentials to make the same investment.
The flipside of the harmful use of drones is their positive use in logistics and distribution if properly managed and regulated, and I hope that the Bill will do just that. AGS Airports, which owns and manages Glasgow airport in my constituency, along with Aberdeen and Southampton airports, is leading a consortium that will develop and trial what will be the UK’s first national distribution network to use drones to transport essential medicines, blood, organs and other medical supplies throughout Scotland. The consortium of 14 organisations, including the University of Strathclyde, NATS and Connected Places Catapult, has secured £1.5 million from the industrial strategy future flight challenge fund to demonstrate how autonomous drone technology can enhance access to essential medical supplies, particularly in rural parts of Scotland.
The project started in December last year and will involve live drone flight trials in addition to developing the ground infrastructure needed to recharge the drones and the systems to control them. A key aspect of the project, which dovetails rather well with other parts of the Bill, will be designing pathways to ensure that drones can safely share airspace with civil aviation. Derek Provan, the chief executive of AGS, has said:
“This project has the potential to completely revolutionise the way in which healthcare services are delivered in Scotland.”
Karen Bell, the head of research and development for NHS Ayrshire and Arran, has said:
“NHS Ayrshire & Arran are excited to be leading on the delivery of this project on behalf of the West of Scotland Innovation Hub. This is an opportunity to work with aviation colleagues to explore the innovative use of drone technology to address some of the potential challenges facing daily delivery of NHS services, not only within NHS Ayrshire & Arran but across the West of Scotland.”
We often hear of drones in a negative light, be that in their use in warfare, in closing airports as we saw at Gatwick, or in reported near misses with aircraft, but it is clear that they can provide many positives within a fairly and well-regulated framework.
The changes to airspace that the Bill paves the way for are absolutely vital, as previous speakers and the Minister have outlined. Given the exponential growth in aviation over the decades, it will come as a surprise to many that the management of our skies dates back to a plan conceived and implemented in the 1950s, before the age of the super jumbo, when British European Airways and BOAC ruled the skies over the UK. There can be no argument but that the airspace management framework currently in place requires urgent review and a new policy and plan that will hopefully last for the long run.
Of course, many of the necessary technical improvements have been put in place or are in the pipeline, including the ITEC system at NATS in Prestwick. ITEC stands for interoperability through European collaboration, and it forms the basis of the two equal parts of the next generation of traffic management: software technology, including flight data processing; and the controller working position. This technology will strengthen safety and increase efficiency, and therefore improve the environmental impact of flights through more detailed planning of all flights’ trajectories. It will also enhance interoperability between European control centres, allowing us to share those detailed trajectories to optimise aircraft flights across borders.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a modern and efficient airspace fit for the 21st century, but I am concerned about the gap that has been left in the plans for airspace management. Giving the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department for Transport legal authority and powers is one thing—I take the Minister at his word on hoping not to use them—but that will mean nothing if there are no actual plans to implement. That is the danger caused by the pandemic that is faced by the Airspace Change Organising Group. The financial devastation unleashed on the industry has meant a funding shortfall of around £8 million from what was needed for the group to continue and complete its work. That work has been ongoing for three years now. Given the sums sloshing about the Treasury in recent months, £8 million is a comparative drop in the ocean, and the economic boost and increase in efficiency that the airspace modernisation programme will bring is far in excess of that. It would be ludicrous if the last three years’ work by the group had to be binned for lack of that bridging cash to allow the group to finish its work and ensure that our airspace was fit for the 21st century.
Another strong point that has been alluded to is that, like the rest of our transport infrastructure, aviation needs investment and renewal for the long term. Given the rebuilding of our economic future that is needed as we come out of the pandemic, strategic support is crucial to a sustainable future for aviation and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports.
Airports and the wider industry want to see a more efficient use of airspace, not simply to funnel more flights in, but to minimise the impact of noise and pollution on local communities and to ensure the best environment so that direct links from regional airports to Europe and beyond can be viable, reducing unnecessary transit at overloaded hub airports such as Heathrow. Penny-pinching by the Treasury simply will not cut it, and I hope this will not happen. I urge the Minister to lobby his colleagues to come up with the cash to allow this crucial work to be done properly and come to a proper conclusion. While he is doing so, he could look at the precipice that the industry is staring over, without any real prospect of recovery even beginning until late summer or more likely the autumn. The sector needs proper support, and it needed it yesterday.
I take this opportunity again to urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the Airspace Change Organising Group is given a seat at the Jet Zero table. One key outcome of the airspace modernisation strategy will be a reduction in carbon emissions through increased efficiency in the skies. It is also the cheapest and easiest win with regard to carbon reduction. It seems an oversight, therefore, to leave the group out of top-tier discussions about how aviation can contribute to a low and zero-carbon future, particularly as we approach the COP26 summit in Glasgow. I hope that is on the Department’s radar and a clear mistake can be remedied as soon as possible.
In concluding, the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion on a previous incarnation of the Bill, and I hope that, pending discussions between the UK and Scottish Governments on police and Prison Service powers, the Scottish Parliament will again give consent for the measures in the Bill.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and I welcome his support for this Bill. I start by congratulating the Minister on his appointment to this important role, on his contribution this afternoon and on explaining so clearly the objectives of this necessary Bill.
Like many in the House, I welcome the objectives of the Bill to update the legislative framework for the control of civilian UK airspace. Through the modernisation of airspace, we can reduce carbon emissions from aviation, reduce the impact of flightpaths and tackle the misuse of unmanned aircraft, such as drones. It is particularly fitting that after some years of delay, largely through the intervention of the general election in 2019, this Bill is being brought to the House on the very day that Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta publishes his seminal review on the economics of biodiversity.
Aviation plays a vital part in our economy, but it is crucial that we find a way to reduce its environmental impact. While that is not the primary purpose of the Bill, it is a necessary and fundamental ancillary benefit. Inefficient flightpaths set some decades ago will lead to longer travel times for passengers and freight traffic and therefore greater carbon dioxide emissions from flights. Airspace modernisation, if robust, can play a part in helping the UK meet our net zero obligations by 2050.
I want to use my brief contribution today to highlight the potential impact of flightpaths over those parts of our landmass that have a special place in nature and are designated as areas of special significance, including the national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. They are areas that we as a nation have designated as being of sufficient importance to warrant additional protection. It seems to me that when the impact of noise pollution is well known, we should ensure that such areas continue to be protected as much as possible through any changes to flightpaths.
I place on record my thanks to my noble Friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for tabling an amendment to this Bill that would have precluded aircraft from flying below 7,000 feet over areas of outstanding natural beauty, except for the purposes of safety or landing and take-off from airports and airfields. Seven thousand feet is the point at which noise is considered by the Civil Aviation Authority to be a pertinent consideration when designing flightpaths.
While Lord Randall did not press the amendment to a Division, he did refer in the debate on 22 January in the other place to some written questions I had asked of the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), and I will briefly comment on her responses. I am aware that existing air navigation guidance suggests that
“where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks.”
That is welcome, so far as it goes, but it frankly does not go very far. Many people would like to see the limit raised to a higher threshold. Even at the existing height restriction, there appears to be almost nothing in the way of sanction should the advice be ignored. I recognise that it will not be possible for flights to avoid all AONBs and national parks—Gatwick is surrounded by them, for example—but I would like further reassurance from the Minister about the redress or sanctions available should civilian aircraft fly lower than they should.
There may be a tool at hand to help him. I warmly welcome the establishment in 2019 of the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise, under the leadership of head commissioner Rob Light, to provide some transparent and independent advice in the aircraft noise debate. While it is clearly early days, ICCAN’s ambitions are welcome.
In the foreword to his first corporate strategy, Mr Light said:
“Welcome action is being taken by UK Government, the aviation industry and others to address climate change and reduce carbon emissions. I believe that aviation noise must also be considered by the industry and Government as a major issue, alongside climate change.”
I agree with him. Given that we are proposing changing flight paths, it is prudent for us to have robust information about how noise will impact the public and the natural world that we are trying to protect on the ground. While not interfering with its independence, I urge the Minister to ensure that ICCAN’s remit includes engaging not only with communities adjacent to airports, airfields and their flight paths, but those responsible for managing our designated landscapes, national parks and AONBs, and wider areas likely to be impacted adversely by noise.
I have been contacted by a number of constituents over the past couple of years complaining of increased civilian air traffic. They live within the Shropshire Hills AONB, which covers some 300 square miles—half of my constituency of Ludlow. They have seen, and in some cases recorded, an increase in flight numbers, particularly during the summer of 2019, which was prior to the pandemic—flight numbers will clearly have declined during the pandemic. They found it very difficult to secure information on the cause of the increase, details of aircraft movements at different heights or what could be done about it. Given that challenge, with exemptions to freedom of information requests for several civil aviation bodies, I urge the Minister to consider whether the application of FOI exemptions in this area remains appropriate, for the sake of greater public transparency.
I welcome the measures concerning unmanned aircraft and drones in part 3 of the Bill. It is clear that this nascent but rapidly growing industry has a strong future with huge applications, from which we will all derive significant benefit. I am particularly interested to see how, for example, drones are already being used to monitor environmental change and the impact of pollution.
However, we have already seen the ability of drones to disrupt people’s lives, including the notable incident at Gatwick airport in 2018, when more than 1,000 flights were impacted by a drone siting close to the runway, so we must consider carefully how we can maintain public safety from malicious actors using drones in ways that are dangerous to public health or safety. I welcome the measures in the Bill to do that, but I urge the Minister to ensure that he has sufficient flexibility through the Bill and its regulations to keep up to date with emerging technology, to ensure small unmanned aircraft or drones can be identified in flight and safely grounded, if necessary, by police, prison or other relevant security services. I look forward to supporting the Bill this evening.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to express my sadness at the loss of Captain Tom Moore and send my condolences to his family.
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who has campaigned so steadily on these issues to protect our environment.
Let me be clear. I welcome the aim of the Bill, which, as it states in the briefing, is:
“to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys.”
Whether the Bill’s further aim of delivering more capacity is compatible with “quieter and cleaner journeys” has yet to be seen and yet to be proved. Assessing the past performance and the current practice of the aviation industry leads us to be extremely sceptical that the continued expansion of capacity will enable the aviation sector to be cleaner and quieter. As we hopefully bring the covid pandemic under control in the coming period, there is obviously an urgent need now to address the next imminent crisis, which is the existential threat of climate change. If the aviation industry is to play its part in tackling climate change, the Government must be equipped with the powers to drive through the necessary changes to aviation practices.
The Bill does take a first step in seeking those powers and I welcome it in that respect. The problem is that it is yet another piecemeal measure without the context of an overarching strategy for aviation to secure an economically and environmentally viable future for the industry. The Government promised they would publish, in 2020, an aviation White Paper, “Aviation 2050”, to spell out their views and plans for the future of aviation. I appreciate and understand why the impact of the covid crisis has delayed the White Paper—I am happy to cut the Government some slack on that one. However, we have also been repeatedly promised, since last March, that the Government would at least come forward with an interim sector strategy that would see the industry through the pandemic and lay the foundations for the future. It is disappointing that that has not been forthcoming. Instead, there has just been a steady drip of unco-ordinated announcements of short-term support schemes.
Apart from this tardy and piecemeal sticking plaster approach, one of the worst elements of the situation is that the Government’s financial support to the aviation companies has been without any conditions about the behaviour of those companies. That has allowed unprincipled companies like Heathrow Airport Ltd in effect to use taxpayers’ money to treat its staff—many of my constituents—like serfs. They have seized on the crisis to impose fire and rehire tactics, cut wages, undermine working conditions and seek to break the unions.
Instead of this Bill, the Government should bring forward a comprehensive strategy that provides the support and direction to the industry to see it through the tough period it faces over the next 12 months, but also a strategy for the long term: setting out the clear objective of creating an environmentally sustainable aviation sector; setting out the parameters in which the industry will have to operate to achieve that; establishing the decision-making, implementation and regulatory structures that will successfully drive the strategy through; and, of course, identifying the policies and the financial support that will be available to secure what we are arguing for, which is a just transition.
The Bill is a fish out of water. It is impossible to discern how it fits into any clear strategy for a viable future for aviation. It leads to even more confusion over who does what, who leads on what and who decides on what. It fails to inspire confidence that it has taken any account of the most recent research and understanding of the social, health and environmental impacts of expanding aviation, especially the impacts of noise and air pollution. Worryingly, as a constituency MP with an airport in my constituency, it appears to sideline even further the role of local authorities and local communities in decision making.
The Bill will go through its Second Reading tonight, but it just provides yet more evidence that the Government’s whole approach to the aviation industry is increasingly turning into a dog’s breakfast. The people who suffer from this self-evident fiasco, which is ongoing, are, regrettably, my constituents and others. Although the Bill will go through, I hope the Government now recognise their responsibility and their promises to bring forward an aviation strategy paper, so we can properly discuss the long-term future of the sector.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]
I express my condolences to Sir Tom Moore’s friends and family. He has been special in many ways, and a stellar example of how doing such an apparently small thing has influences that we could not possibly imagine.
This is Sedgefield calling Westminster control, and I apologise for not using my pilot’s headset, as you would prefer, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a private pilot, I guess I should declare an interest. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all who work in providing pilots with a safe space in which to operate. Their work is critical not only for pilots, but obviously for their passengers and those on the ground. I have to say that the chances of my flying in most of the airspace we are discussing is somewhere between nil and negligible, but I do retain hope.
I will consider the three parts of this Bill. On part 1, it makes eminent sense to me that there should be a single authority to force co-operation should the parties responsible for the management of airspace be unable to agree. The Secretary of State’s delegation to the CAA is an appropriate reference. Over the years, the geographical influence of the bigger airport corridors has evolved so that potential changes in one corridor are increasingly likely to have impacts on another. I know that when flying in the south-east, even as a recreational pilot, the airspace is increasingly restricted. The Bill gives the Transport Secretary new powers to ensure that airports modernise their airspace, with the power to fine those that do not implement changes quickly enough. I strongly believe that an absolute power to require the parties to progress collaboratively is wholly appropriate should it be required, but only when it is required.
Moving on to part 2, it is clear that anyone who observes traffic at the major airports is well aware of the congestion that can arise and the obvious desire to reduce the need to stack aircraft in a holding pattern awaiting landing, which is so obviously a waste of fuel and an environmentally unfriendly process. By modernising our airspace, we can reduce the time it takes for a plane to land, meaning we cut pollution, reduce noise nuisance for the communities below and reduce delays for passengers. With appropriate tools and systems, the integration of different classes of aviation also becomes much more achievable, which should promote efficiency for all classes without introducing safety concerns. There are many challenges for the air travel business in addressing its carbon footprint and making it possible for flights to have as little wasted time in the air as possible, and this is clearly a step in the right direction.
It is necessary to update the regulatory regime for the provision of en route air traffic control services. The licensing framework under the Transport Act 2000 needs to be modernised to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, and that it continues to build on the UK’s excellent safety record and to be resilient. For those living under the flight paths, the opportunity to have a system in use that provides occasional relief by redirecting flights for specific time periods will, I am sure, be welcome. In addition, there are many busy airports around the world that happily integrate general aviation and commercial flights, and these opportunities should be more achievable under more advanced systems as and when they are introduced.
My main concern today, however, is about the powers on allowing the waiver of the rule that airlines must use their allocated airport slots at least 80% of the time to avoid losing the slots in the next season. While I have no desire to encourage airlines to fly inefficient routes to retain their lucrative allocated landing slots, I must express concern that any latitude offered is restricted in its use and closely monitored.
I support giving a helping hand to airlines during the coronavirus pandemic, meaning they are not forced to fly empty planes, but the ownership of these slots has been abused in the past to frustrate opportunities for regional airports, such as Teesside in my Sedgefield constituency. While I accept that we are in peculiar times, we must still look to deliver appropriate slots for UK regional airports. I would strongly encourage that, in taking the power of the waiver, the Secretary of State recognises that in using it he needs to be cognisant of unintended consequences. It is imperative that, if he chooses to use the power of waiver, he still enables a review of slots, does not allow a full roll-over and retains a mechanism to reallocate some of those, particularly to support regional airports.
In order to level up and economically strengthen the UK’s regions, it is vital that areas such as the Tees Valley are able to offer worldwide connectivity. That can only realistically be achieved by ensuring that our airport is connected to Heathrow. We have been very pleased to restore flights from Teesside to Heathrow this year. That route closed some 11 years ago, when British Midland took the long-standing Teesside slots to use on other routes. Today, the service is provided by Eastern Airways, although the airport is in the process of finalising arrangements with the UK’s largest regional airline, Loganair, for it to take over operation of the route from March 2021, bringing expertise and worldwide connections that will help the route to grow and prosper. Loganair already holds the slots required for the launch in March but is currently on the waiting list for the Heathrow slots in summer 2021 and beyond. An inappropriate or excessive waiver of the “use it or lose it” provisions would risk allowing legacy airlines to sit on slots without using them, wasting air carriage capacity at a time when we must make best use of all the resources of economic strength at our disposal.
It is critical that the UK’s airports are fully utilised and that our regions are well connected. If the wrong decision is made and the regulation is totally waived, it could be hugely damaging to entrepreneurial regional airports. The efforts of the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, to deliver regional investment and the potential relocation of the Treasury to the Tees Valley would be enhanced by a growing opportunity for links to Heathrow, and I hope that those are not frustrated.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the Minister and his officials how reforms could be conducted to help ensure that Teesside International airport has the opportunity to secure long-term connections to Heathrow for services to and from UK domestic points. I hope that the laudable efforts to support the airline industry, reduce waste and reduce the carbon footprint do not simultaneously damage the regions of the UK. Finally, having seen the disruption around Gatwick and understanding the risks of drones around prisons, I am pleased to support the measures in part 3 of the Bill. I will not drone on any further, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). It is with sadness that we hear of the passing of Sir Tom, and I pass on my condolences to the family at this time.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill. At the outset, I would like to thank the Minister for the opportunity to be involved in two briefing sessions on this yesterday, which were extremely informative.
Since the 1950s, airspace changes have been made in an ad hoc and piecemeal fashion, with adjustments being made in response to the growth of traffic levels. Of course, that was pre covid-19, and this is seen as a fairly good time to make changes, when there is a reduction in the number of flights. That has resulted in various inefficiencies that have put constraints on the number of flights that our airspace can accommodate. Technical advances have made it possible to increase capacity, but unfortunately, they have not necessarily made their way through to the regulatory change that the Bill will enable.
In the past, aircraft have ended up circling over airports—stacking. Many of us have sat in planes that are circling, predominantly over the south-east of England, which is probably one of the most congested airspaces in the UK. That adds to the problems of pollution and noise pollution for local residents. This Bill is an opportunity to deal with some of those issues. I represent an area where there is some manufacturing relating to the airline industry. It is important that we encourage innovation and the delivery of improvements in that area. That has been going on, and it can be seen in the form of quieter and more efficient aircraft, which will benefit the environment and those areas that are affected.
I believe that this Bill will deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys. It will also increase capacity and reduce the need for stacking over airports. I listened to some of the comments made earlier with great interest, especially those in relation to the opportunities that may exist for using satellite technology to direct planes. We should make better use of that. Such technology will help to ensure that planes are not burning fuel and that they are using the best routes. Because of technology, the separation that was added in a bygone age will not be necessary, and we should be progressing and moving on with that.
Included in the Bill are provisions to consult communities when airspace changes are being introduced. I welcome that and think that that is something that needs to be addressed. The Minister made reference to what is called “ghost flights”, which is where people fly planes just for the sake of holding a slot. The flexibility that will be introduced in relation to this, at least until August 2024, is to ensure that we are not purposefully wasting fuel, causing additional costs to airlines. As a passenger, I know how important it is to ensure that passengers get the benefit of reduced flight costs if that is possible, but that is one of the add-ons that might take a while to work its way through. I appreciate that any advances in the reduction of running costs and such like will be of benefit to all.
It was with interest that I read in the briefing notes that if we continued on the current trajectory, we would end up—I cannot remember the figure exactly—with a 72 times increase in the number of flights with a delay of more than half an hour by 2030. If that were to happen, it would be a major problem. If we can alleviate that, it would be of great help to everyone.
The second part of the Bill deals with air traffic and the licence modifications. This is an area that brings in the CAA and NATS and those involved in the operating of those modifications. Investment in new and improved radar needs to be put in place. I am working from memory here, but there is a 10-year licence, with an agreement to extend it to 15 years. In doing so, that will provide an opportunity for greater investment, because the payback time is longer. Therefore, there is an opportunity for those who want to invest. We need to encourage the introduction of the latest technology in our aviation industry. I am not saying that our industry is not safe; we have some of the safest airports in the world, and it is important that we maintain that. Bringing forward a Bill such as this will help us to stay at the top of the tree in this area. Those are all positive things.
Let me move on now to the third part of the Bill. Mention has been made of the 2018 debacle at Gatwick Airport and the difficulty that it caused. I and two of my staff were impacted by what happened on that day—that very eventful day. Drones are a wonderful invention and can be very positive, but legislation needs to be put in place to deal with those who want to misuse them. The police require additional powers to enforce that legislation. The idea of no-fly zones for drones also needs to be considered and the Bill goes towards giving us some assurance in this area.
Another issue that needs to be looked at—this was mentioned yesterday in the briefing session—is those who use laser pens. This causes major problems. We have to focus on what is operating in aerospace and the effect on commercial airlines flying over densely populated areas. We need to do everything in our power not only in respect of issuing fines but to give the police and those who are responsible the teeth to be able to go after those who abuse such equipment and create problems. Some people do it wilfully. Mention has been made of being able to identify drones by giving them a specific ID relating to the people who buy them and ensuring that those people are licensed and have adequate competency to use such vehicles. We do not pursue strongly enough those who cause problems and the penalties should definitely reflect how serious the effects could be and how many people’s lives could be affected by such abuse.
The Bill covers those who abuse drones by using them to smuggle things into prisons and all sorts of things. We have to have measures in place and that needs to be covered in the Bill. There is a common-sense approach to many of the issues we have discussed. I believe we should look at every Bill and ask, “Does this make sense?” As far as I am concerned, the Bill goes a long way to address something that needs to be reformed and brought into the 21st century. We need to ensure that the law is fit for purpose. I will support the Bill this evening.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) [V]
May I associate myself with your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, about Captain Sir Tom Moore? It is a sad loss for our country and, of course, especially for his family. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.
It is a privilege to speak in this debate as I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on general aviation, the Member of Parliament who represents Cornwall Airport Newquay, and a keen supporter of our aviation sector and especially our regional airports. I very much welcome the Bill and will be pleased to support it later this evening. I acknowledge all the work that the Minister and previous Ministers have put in, along with officials in the Department, to get us to this point. It has taken longer than we expected because of a number of factors, but the approach that the Department has taken—to engage and listen to stakeholders across the aviation sector—has been hugely welcomed and, along with the input from the other place, means that the Bill before us is a very good one.
The UK’s airspace is our invisible infrastructure in the sky. It is vital to the success of our aviation sector and the wider economy. It will become increasingly important in the years to come, with the development of clean flights through clean fuels and electric and hydrogen-powered flight. In recent times, there have been those who have prophesised the demise of aviation in the light of the need to reduce our carbon footprint, but I believe that its best days lie ahead. The industry is committed to playing a key part in helping the UK to achieve the Government’s ambitious aims on cutting our carbon emissions, and good progress is being made.
Although the sector has taken a huge hit, both in the UK and globally, because of the pandemic, I have every confidence that it will bounce back with the right support. We should use the current crisis to ensure that the sector is able to accelerate reform to a cleaner future. That is why it is vital that the Government continue to support the sector to ensure that it is able to lead our national recovery. The regional support for airports through the offsetting of business rates is welcome, but it would be remiss of me not to make the case for further sector support for airlines, those in the supply chain and airports at this incredibly challenging time.
We have a world-leading aviation sector of which we should be proud. We have the third-largest aviation network in the world and the second-largest aerospace manufacturing sector, supporting 1 million jobs and with a turnover in excess of £60 billion before the pandemic. Yet despite all the developments and growth in aviation over decades, the UK’s airspace has largely remained unchanged for 60 years. Review and change is long overdue, and the measures in the Bill are welcome and essential.
It is a huge credit to the UK aviation sector that it has maintained the growth it has, despite us lagging behind the rest of the world in airspace management. As aircraft and aviation technologies have advanced in the past 60 years, our airspace management has not kept pace. That has led at times to inefficient use of airspace, which has often contributed to higher pollution and noise.
I have nothing but admiration for those at NATS who manage our airspace in what has been one of the most complex airborne environments in the world, underpinned by an overly bureaucratic system of outdated legislation and complex guidance. The strains on our airspace have become most apparent in recent years. Prior to covid, flight delays in minutes per year had been increasing consistently in the five years leading up to 2020. That coincided with a year-on-year rise in the number of flights in the UK. Most alarmingly, estimates by the DFT suggest that, without the modernising of air traffic, delays could rise by 72 times by 2030, with more than one flight in every three from UK airports expected to depart more than half an hour late. Those estimates were admittedly put together prior to the pandemic, but when we do return to the pre-2019 level of flights in 2023 or 2024 as expected, we are unlikely to see a change in the trend of delayed flights without modernisation of our airspace.
The implementation of the reforms, innovations and technological solutions set out in the Bill are essential for our future prosperity. As we continue to deliver modern airports and state-of-the-art fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly aircraft, it would be a missed opportunity for us not also to modernise our airspace in the process. I am pleased that that is exactly what the Bill will bring about. I welcome the Bill also because it is a great example of cross-party parliamentarians from both Houses of Parliament working together with Government Departments and relevant civil authorities on issues of common concern that can be addressed only by bringing all stakeholders on board.
The all-party parliamentary group on general aviation, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport started and chaired for many years, has long looked into the issue of airspace change. In summer 2019, the APPG’s dedicated working group on airspace published its report of the inquiry led by the noble Lord Kirkhope on the adequacy of our airspace, especially at the lower—arguably more dangerous—end of below 7,000 feet. One important recommendation from the inquiry to the DFT and CAA was the introduction of a ratchet-down process for removing underused volumes of controlled airspace. It also suggested that the CAA should make a radical shift in its internal processes for airspace change to allow for greater flexibility in future airspace design. I am pleased to see both recommendations incorporated in the Bill and thank Ministers and officials for their proactive and positive engagement with members of the APPG in the consultation process.
The Bill will achieve this modernisation in three main parts. It will allow for an airport or other person involved in airspace change to be compelled to progress or co-operate with an airspace change proposal in line with the overall modernisation strategy. The second part of the Bill will bring in much needed updates to our airspace licensing regime in accordance with best practice. Part 3 relates to unmanned aircraft such as drones, which are no doubt a critical part of the future of aviation; their development is important for our economy for the future.
General aviation is often overlooked in the aviation policies of successive Governments, but general aviation matters. GA contributes over £1 billion to the UK economy, and supports hundreds of thousands of well-paid jobs across all regions of the UK. GA is also important as a gateway to the UK’s world-beating commercial aviation sector. General aviation activities such as gliding provide accessible grassroots, which often help to inspire young people into science, technology, maths and engineering subjects. GA platforms are also the best early testbeds for new technologies, such as electric propulsion. Without free airspace to test in, the UK will be at a competitive disadvantage for attracting high-tech aviation companies just as we are seeing the dawn of the new era of sustainable aviation.
General aviation is often overlooked when it comes to airspace management, and often finds itself restricted, or excluded from too much airspace. The Bill grants the Government—and, by extension, the CAA—the power to request that an air navigation service provider change its airspace in a certain way. This will be the first time that our regulator has ever been given this power, which is commonly found in other countries. The Bill will complement the CAA’s airspace modernisation strategy, which aims to rationalise the UK’s airspace system, bringing greater efficiency to air transport. Indeed, alongside the strategy is a commitment to look at reclassifying areas of low airspace that are problematic for general aviation. To improve use of lower airspace, it may be necessary to compel an airport to reduce its area of controlled airspace. This would not be achieved without the powers contained in the Bill.
Finally, I turn to the much discussed Government amendment on the temporary alleviation of the 80:20 usage rule, which requires airlines to use their allocated airport slots at least 80% of the time to retain entitlement to the same slots in the next equivalent scheduling period. I fully understand the rationale behind this. We do not want to see airlines continuing to fly empty or near-empty aircrafts at huge financial and environmental costs for the sake of keeping their slots. When administered well, the reprieve from this rule can form an essential part of the wider package of support for the industry. However, I urge Ministers to ensure that it does not pose any obstacle to maintaining critical connections between regional and national airports, and thus hinder the Government’s agenda to drive regional growth. I seek the Minister’s assurance that we will not miss this opportunity to ensure that slot allocation is not a barrier to growth, and that we grow our essential connectivity to our major airports for regional airports.
The Bill will bring much needed changes to modernise our airspace and improve efficiency of air traffic management. It will help to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys, which will help to reduce carbon emissions while increasing capacity where needed, increasing the resilience of our airspace and allowing greater access for general aviation. The Bill represents yet another positive step for the future of British aviation. I am pleased to support the Bill and urge colleagues across the House to do so.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
I am sorry that you cannot see me, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for updating the House with the very sad news about Captain Sir Tom Moore’s death. I extend the Liberal Democrats’ condolences to the family at this very sad news. His positive and energetic response to the lockdown last summer was an inspiration to many people at a time when we really needed it, and a great sadness at the news of his death will extend far beyond his family and friends.
I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats on this important piece of legislation. It is fantastic that it is finally making its way through the Houses of Parliament. It is a really important and long overdue airspace modernisation Bill, and I welcome its Second Reading today. The Liberal Democrats will be supporting all parts of the Bill. Obviously, anything at all to do with airspace modernisation will be closely monitored in Richmond Park, especially in the light of changes to the aviation industry resulting from covid-19. We have seen an enormous drop in aviation activity; in terms of the overall noise that my residents are experiencing, that is certainly something that we welcome.
We very much welcome the Government taking powers to implement airspace change in part 1 of the Bill, because we hope that by taking control of such changes, they will enable residents who live under flightpaths or near airports to be listened to. Residents should have the opportunity to respond to consultations, and to have the Government respond to their views when changes are proposed. This should not be driven just by the airline industry, and I believe we can get a better balance so that all different and competing interests are reflected in this airspace change which, as other hon. Members have said, is long overdue.
Hon. Members have been speaking about aircraft noise, and about developments such as noise-saving or quieter aircraft. I hope we will be able to bank any improvements in aircraft noise, as that will improve the quality of life for residents everywhere, and certainly for those who live under flight paths and near airports. I hope that can be about a general improvement in quality of life, rather than the proposal, which I have seen, for such improvements just to mean that we have more aircraft, so that we would maintain current levels of noise, but with more, quieter, aircraft. I want to push back against that, and encourage the Minister to think about a gradual alleviation of the burden of noise on residents everywhere.
We welcome the temporary provisions in part 2 of the Bill on slot allocation, which will provide certainty for an industry that has had the most catastrophic year and is looking very much to the future. Airlines will want to know that their slots are protected, and the change in legislation makes a great deal of sense. As others have highlighted, it is absurd that airlines should feel forced to provide empty or half-empty services just to maintain slots. That is not only a waste of money—a precious cost that the industry can ill afford at this time—but the impact on carbon emissions does not need spelling out. We are all committed to reducing unnecessary carbon emissions, and we need the Bill to stop those unnecessary flights. The Bill will introduce welcome flexibility to slot allocation as we go forward and find our way out of the covid pandemic, and particularly when we start to rebuild the aviation industry after the lockdown. That will enable the industry to respond better to changes in demand, with a corresponding saving in costs and carbon emissions.
I welcome the legislation on drones, which is long overdue. Drones have been a feature of UK life for a considerable time, and until now much of the regulation on their use has been contained in CAA regulations. The use of drones should be governed by criminal law, and as we saw with the Gatwick shutdown at Christmas 2018, proper legislation is long overdue. Drones will have a transformative impact on British life over the next 10 to 15 years, and they have clear and proven benefits to our military, police and emergency services. There are emerging applications for drones in our business and creative sectors. Those advantages have also been exploited by criminals and terrorists, and it is right to introduce powers to clamp down on illegal usage and make the fullest positive use of the new technology. Part of that involves building trust among the British public regarding the use of drones and those who use them, so that they know that drones are properly regulated and licensed and that usage is monitored. That will give us the opportunity fully to exploit their potential.
I am concerned that the Bill does not address the pressing issue of privacy and the threat to it that drones represent. Addressing that properly will encourage the British public in their confidence about drone use. I hope the Government will continue to monitor the development of drone use, and be prepared to update legislation accordingly, as and when new uses appear—including potentially negative uses—so that we maintain the British public’s trust in that emerging and exciting new technology.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). This is a good Bill, and I commend the Minister and his team for its drafting and for bringing it forward at this time. It is a very relevant Bill for Bedfordshire, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, many people in Bedfordshire work at London Luton airport and in its associated supply chain. Owing to protocol, as a Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) is not contributing in this debate, but I am sure that she would want to commend to the House the work of Cranfield University. I believe it is the only university with its own airport, and it plays a leading role in our understanding of aircraft, airport and airspace management.
This is also a timely Bill, because although, as the Minister said, most have paused their consultation work on airspace changes, there is an ongoing consultation on airspace at Luton airport, in combination with Stansted. I wish to draw attention to certain features of that as they relate to this Bill. The Bill rightly recognises that in the allocation and sharing of the limited resource of airspace above the United Kingdom there is a considerable public interest. The Bill focuses, correctly, on making sure that in that process overall public interest is achieved to the best extent as quickly and efficiently as possible. In doing so, it brings to the Civil Aviation Authority and to the Department certain additional ways of compelling airports to make changes that will achieve a speedier resolution of airspace allocations, which will in turn achieve some of our other goals.
One of the most important of those goals is achieving air quality standards and making sure that our aviation industry is sustainable as we seek to achieve our climate change goals. Although the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was right to say that this Bill is just a part of that and that there is a large whole that we need to consider, I hope he would recognise that the Government are right to bring forward this part of the puzzle; it is a crucial part of our achieving that overall ambition.
The third area of public interest is in the issue of externalities. Although many people work in and use airports, a great number of people are also affected by airports and their use. Airports, by their very nature, can create noise pollution, and they create air pollution and congestion. Those points come to the fore when consultations about airspace changes take place, as is the case currently with the Luton and Stansted airspace changes consultation.
That process is under way and the Minister’s comments in this debate may therefore be curtailed, but I point out to him that many of my constituents feel that their ability as members of the public to participate in that consultation has been curtailed, not just because of covid restrictions, but by the very framework by which the public can voice their opinions about those changes. In trying to move pieces around and achieve an overall picture that works for the country as a whole, our national airspace control is perhaps intrinsically limited in what it can offer as suggestions to the public for their consultation. In the London Luton airport consultation, the public in Bedfordshire have been left with a limited choice of options to be consulted on. They therefore feel that their democratic voice is not being heard. What consideration has the Minister given to ensuring that, as we achieve greater speed in the process, the public truly have a voice in the resolution of deciding on flightpaths?
That takes us on to the sharing of benefits. We are having a consultation in Bedfordshire because Luton airport wishes to expand, which will be very much to the financial benefit of the operator of Luton airport and also of the landlords—that is, one of the local authorities in Bedfordshire, Luton Borough Council. Both the airport operator and Luton Borough Council should anticipate considerable increases in their revenues from that expansion, yet it is the residents of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire who will incur the costs of those externalities, whether that is in air quality, noise pollution or their ability to get around and about because of road congestion. That is not addressed in the Bill and, again, I would be interested in the Minister’s view of whether it is appropriate, as part of the allocation of airspace, to start to see in this Bill consideration of how those affected by the changes can receive compensation from those who benefit from them.
The parts of the Bill that refer to drones are welcome additional legislation. This is a good move for the Government, providing some order in how the criminal uses of drones can be controlled. I was reassured in my conversations with the Minister that the additional burdens and responsibilities on police forces should not be considerable. This is a particular issue in Bedfordshire, again, where police resources are spread so thinly. As other Members have said, it is particularly around airports that the misuse of drones becomes of such great concern to the public. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment further about his expectations of the burden on police time, in order to give additional reassurance to the police.
While I am on the issue of the police, I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about the police use of drones. That is not in the Bill, but I would point out to the Minister that there is considerable advantage in the police being able to use drones in everyday policing. As a Member of Parliament for a largely rural constituency, I know that drones offer an opportunity for response times that other modes of transportation would be unable to accomplish. As part of this overall review of airspace, what consultations has the Minister been having with the Home Office to ensure that any future required use of drones by the police will be adequately covered by the regulations that we are looking at today?
I close by joining colleagues in paying tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore, a national hero and an adopted son of Bedfordshire, with these words, which he used to encourage us last April, when we were perhaps at the darkest of times. He said:
“To all those…finding it difficult…the sun will shine on you again, and the clouds will go away”.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
That is a very good tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore, and one in which I think we would all happily participate.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also briefly mention my own sadness at hearing of the death of Captain Sir Tom Moore? I am sure that all our thoughts are with his family, who must be unspeakably proud of the enormous contribution that he has made through his fundraising to our national morale and to the NHS in this most difficult of times.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) in this important and much-delayed debate. Covid-19 has cast light on a number of issues perhaps forgotten and deserving of more attention, and this is one that has been neglected as a result of the pandemic. Airspace has been part of my political career from the moment I was elected—indeed, before then—in 2017. The proposed new flight paths for Edinburgh airport, which are part of the new airspace management proposals, were already controversial. One of the first issues I had to address immediately after my election that year were the published proposals and the consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority. Since then, there has been little, if any, progress, and even before covid-19 the process had stalled. The uncertainty and delay around this Bill has created an unfair situation not just for the industry and the airports but for the communities around them. The noise pollution and air pollution created by flightpaths needs to be addressed, and communities must have a say in that.
The last time that management of our astonishingly complex airspace was seriously addressed was, as we have heard, in the 1950s. Decades and decades have passed with nothing close to substantial update or alteration. If that were in any other area—say, our roads or our railways—we would be shocked. We have seen so many advances and it is unimaginable that there has not been modernisation.
As we seek to recover from covid-19, we need this Bill to give people the confidence that we have done, and are doing, all we can to deliver more efficient and greener journeys for everyone. As part of that, we also need to tackle the illegal use of drones and prioritise people’s safety above all else, balancing the rights and liberties of those who use them and the many advantages that we have heard that they can bring. In 2017 alone, there were more than 50 reported near misses. Imagine the devastation and the loss of life that could have been caused if one of those unmanned aircraft collided with, perhaps, a wide-bodied jet at an airport close to a highly populated area. We need geofencing software to make it impossible for these drones to encroach on commercial and military airspace. We need to make sure that all the new powers of enforcement are proportionate and acknowledge that the majority of users are law-abiding. We also need to acknowledge, as previous speakers have mentioned, the advantages that could come from proper and effective use of these unmanned aircraft.
We need to see, as part of this process, the safeguarding of slots. We have heard mention of the 80:20 rule. So many of these slots have been underused over the past year and could have been lost. We must suspend such automatic suspension. The impact in Scotland of failure to maintain those slots could be crucial to our connectivity, not just with the continent and with London but within Scotland itself, between our mainland airports and the islands. For my own airport in Edinburgh, the routes to London are a vital business connection for the economy not just of Edinburgh but of all of Scotland. Over the recent period, we have seen a steep decline in the number of flights—practically to zero at some points. If those slots were to be lost, our economic recovery would be so much more difficult.
All these issues have to be looked at in conjunction with the other major threat that we face: the threat to our climate. We must acknowledge that the aviation industry and its air traffic is crucial to tackling that. In achieving our net zero targets, fossil fuels, emissions and noise pollution must all be addressed.
This Bill has taken too long and we need to make sure that it progresses now. More delays would mean delays to economic progress, air safety and climate action, and all of that would be unacceptable.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I first, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, offer my sincere condolences to Captain Tom’s daughters and family at a very sad time? Every one of us was inspired by his words when we were all perhaps looking inward and thinking negative thoughts. He inspired us at a time that we really needed it. There was not a morning when we heard him speaking on the television that we did not feel a wee bit better. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) spoke about some of his words. There is one wee sentence that I remember, and always will—I have quoted it many times in this House and to my friends and people I speak to. He always said that
“tomorrow will be a better day”.
The day that he inspired us all as a nation was a better day for us, and it is something that we will never forget.
Thank you for allowing me to speak briefly on this Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. The legislation has been a long time coming. We all recall the shutting down of Gatwick airport and the disruption caused a number of years ago by drones. At that stage, it was clear that while there are many wonderful uses for unmanned aircraft, there are also nefarious ones, and these must be addressed in legislation. That is why I welcome this legislation: it addresses those issues, and I thank the Minister and Government in advance for that. Let us thank them when they do things right, and today they have it right.
I welcome the news of the development of drone fighters through the Ministry of Defence at the former Bombardier plant in Northern Ireland by Spirit AeroSystems Holdings. This £30 million design contract is a three-year deal to build a prototype model, which will help to support 100 jobs at the Belfast aero-structures factory by developing so-called “loyal wingman” drones by the end of the decade to serve alongside the Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin F-35 warplanes. The Royal Air Force’s first unmanned craft would be armed with missiles and carry surveillance and electronic warfare technology.
I have discussed this with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and we have worked in conjunction with the Minister to try to ensure that these are the sort of contracts that come. I do not know for definite, but I am sure that the Minister had a role to play in that, and I thank him in advance. We really do appreciate it. At a time when we hear all the negativity about the high street, it is good to know that we have manufacturing jobs in place in Belfast, and that will spin off for my constituents in Strangford as well.
The Bill is necessary and welcome. I understand that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has used drones more than 370 times since June 2013. Figures obtained by BBC News NI showed that the PSNI used drones in wildlife rescues, missing person hunts and VIP visits. They have very much been a necessary tool in search and rescue missions, as well as being used in other areas. The benefits of drones for security and as a tool to help the security forces is very clear, but there must still be regulation. I therefore welcome the fact that the Bill provides protection on all sides for the expanding use of drones. Some people phoned me and asked, “Where can we use drones?”, so this needs to be regulated and, clearly, we have seen many examples where they have not been used in the correct place.
There are also concerns about the use of drones to smuggle contraband into prisons—this is one of my major concerns. I have asked these questions of Justice Ministers and they always come back with a positive answer. However, these things are happening and the Government have introduced measures to try to stop it.
I read a very interesting report by a prison chief, who openly stated that while the threat to prison security from drones, used to drop consignments into establishments, has been known for several years, it is now the case that
“technology has evolved rapidly to allow the devices to be directed to an”
individual’s
“cell window using GPS transmitters the size of a little finger.”
Technology has moved on and that is why this legislation is so important. The article by Cahal Milmo for inews.co.uk went on to say that
“while the prison service had developed technology capable of detecting and blocking signals used by drones and encrypted telephones smuggled into prison, the prohibitive cost of the equipment and the training to operate it meant it could only be used at a small number of jails.”
The Minister is not responsible for jails and for justice, but if there are examples of drones being used to bring contraband and illegal substances into prisons, such equipment should be made available to every prison. In Northern Ireland, drones have been used on multiple occasions to drop goods from cigarettes to drugs, and even family photographs, so it is clear that the introduction of new rules in 2019, while welcome, was insufficient. That is why we need the Bill.
I recently contacted my local council to see how I could help someone who was suffering owing to antisocial behaviour, which, by the way, was noise caused by the misuse of a drone in close proximity to his house, as well as a number of other houses in the area. It is clear that our local authorities and police force need more to work with. It is my hope that the Bill will deliver exactly that, and I think it will.
Clauses 13 to 18, together with schedules 8 to 11, will expand the regulatory framework to address misuse of unmanned aircraft. The Bill will provide powers to police the misuse of unmanned aircraft, including grounding unmanned aircraft, stopping and searching people and vehicles, obtaining a warrant to search property, and fixed penalties for certain offences relating to unmanned aircraft.
I look upon the Minister not just as a Minister but as a personal friend, and his energy and interest in the subject are expressed in the way he does his job. I say a big thank you to him for that. I also thank the Government for what they do and for introducing a Bill that encapsulates the strength of the House and brings us together. You know me, Madam Deputy Speaker: I often say that we are better together and better when we work together to make things happen. Today is an example of that.
The proposals are sensible and I support the Government in their aim to enable those using drones for the right reasons to do so legally by licence. Those who use drones for other purposes should understand that there are severe penalties for doing so. I welcome the Bill and its aims.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Given his weekly commute, he is well placed to comment on air travel. As always, he spoke with great authority.
The Bill is welcome, and I congratulate the Minister and his predecessor on the work they have done in the other place and on bringing the Bill to the House relatively unchanged and with cross-party support. This is a good Bill and I support it.
My constituency sits mid-way between Manchester and Liverpool John Lennon airports, so in the skies above the town we see flights coming from all directions just after take-off or as they come in to land. We are well aware of the need to ensure that there is co-ordination between airport operators when they plan routes. I am also very aware that around 4,000 of my constituents are employed in this sector. This is an important part of the local economy.
I agree with the Minister that there is a need to modernise UK airspace, and I welcome the plan to make journeys quicker, quieter and cleaner. Most important, though, is retaining the essential elements of safety in our skies, which are some of the busiest and most complicated in the world. It is therefore critical that we prepare for the next 50 years. The UK aviation sector is a global leader and an engine for growth, and we need it to be fit for purpose to enable levelling up in our UK regions.
As we know, owing to covid-19, there is only limited air traffic, with most airports running at between 1% and 3% of normal passenger levels. We also know that air travel will return, and we need to ensure that our airspace—our infrastructure; highways in the sky—is fit for purpose in a post-pandemic world.
As someone who lives under the flight path for aircraft leaving Manchester airport, I am particularly pleased to hear that this programme will also have an impact on noise. By simplifying UK airspace, we are making it more efficient. It will deliver more precise and more direct routes, preventing rising delays and reducing congestion. These upgrades to our regulatory infrastructure will be essential in reducing the environmental impact of UK flights by reducing miles flown and carbon dioxide levels, alongside industry efforts to develop more fuel-efficient engines and cleaner, sustainable fuels.
Advances in aircraft and air traffic control capabilities risk other countries pressing ahead with modernising their systems, while we risk lagging behind if we do not do the same and support the Bill. Airspace modernisation, by facilitating emissions savings, is therefore a key component of the UK’s legally binding commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, while also benefiting all users of airspace, including general aviation flyers, and tackling the misuse of new types of unmanned aircraft, such as drones, which I will talk about later.
One of the main challenges that might impede the implementation of the Bill and future planning will be the financial state of the industry. I am particularly pleased to welcome the £8 million of UK Government support grant funding for airports such as Manchester and Liverpool announced last week. Airports have seen their revenues disappear almost completely for nearly 12 months now. We cannot ignore this issue. I urge the Minister to continue dialogue with airport operators. It would be remiss of me not to mention the ongoing support that I know the sector will continue to need in the coming months, before it can soar again.
Part 2 of the Bill will modernise regulatory provision relating to air traffic services provided by National Air Traffic Services and regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, ensuring that the framework remains fit for purpose and continues to build on the UK’s excellent safety record. The Bill will also enable us to continue to provide alleviation from the requirements to use slots at co-ordinated airports—the 80:20 rule that so many of my colleagues have talked about—for a further time, into 2024. During a pandemic, when flight demand has significantly decreased, we are no longer compelling airlines to run empty flights, costing money and causing pollution just to keep their slots.
Finally, part 3 of the Bill provides new, additional police powers to tackle the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft. It has been developed in conjunction with the Home Office and police forces.
Unmanned aircraft are increasingly being used across the industry and have huge potential for good. Drones are being put to good use by the emergency services, for example, and more broadly can help to improve efficiency in industries such as construction. However, it is crucial that a careful balance is struck in our approach to this technology, to ensure that the successful uptake of drones is matched by strong safeguards to provide public safety, privacy and security.
There is a real threat to aviation. Just before Christmas, the UK Air Safety Board reported on what was described as the closest ever near miss in the UK, when an EasyJet Airbus flying at 8,000 feet, having just taken off over the Cheshire countryside, came within feet of a 10 kg drone. The consequences of the collision would have been disastrous for passengers, crew and those on the ground. We saw the impact at Gatwick when new technology was used to ground flights. I welcome the additional stop-and-search powers for those suspected of being involved with offences involving unmanned aircrafts.
I spoke recently to the governor of Thorn Cross Prison at Appleton Thorn and I am aware of the challenges that the Prison Service faces from the use of drones illegally delivering contraband to convicted criminals. Governors are having to take measures to protect the prison estate, so the additional steps in the Bill are very welcome indeed.
Having not undergone any significant modernisation since the 1950s, there is no doubt that our airspace is in need of change to meet the increasing demands that will continue when the sector returns to full force. The technological advances in unmanned aircraft also present significant challenges. I will be supporting the Bill today.
I offer my condolences to the family and friends of Captain Sir Tom Moore. He gave us optimism at a time when the country faced a terrible crisis. I think we can all agree that he is the definition of a modern hero.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) [V]
May I start by associating myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) said about Captain Sir Tom Moore? Last year, he really did inspire the nation with his fundraising, but of course he also helped to save the nation over 80 years before. It is a very sad day, and my condolences go to his family. He has really shown us the best of British in what he did last year in responding to coronavirus.
I turn to the subject of today’s debate. After all the Brexit and covid-related legislation that we have been through so far, a Bill such as this is quite refreshing for a new MP. It is a more traditional piece of legislation: an important update that reflects changes in the world and aims to future-proof—as best we can—for the world we are going to get back into once we get past the pandemic. I congratulate the Minister and welcome him to his place, and also congratulate Baroness Vere on all the work she did on the Bill in the Lords. This is a case of proportionate regulation, which is what we always seek to do as a Government and as a Conservative party. We recognise the need for regulation. It needs to be proportionate and to not put undue burdens on businesses, but we need to make sure that things work, and work for the good of the country.
I turn briefly to the first of the Bill’s three parts, on airspace management. It is to be hoped that airports can co-operate without the requirement for the Secretary of State to compel them; perhaps this Bill will make the voluntary process a little more voluntary, if you understand what I mean, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, we have an airspace modernisation strategy and, within that, some airports may need to release underused controlled airspace, for example. As many of my colleagues have said, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South, we have a very complex airspace—one of the most complicated in the world. Of course, it is very empty at the moment for the reasons we have discussed, but anything we can do to modernise that and make things work better is obviously something we should be encouraging as a Government. We need quicker, quieter, cleaner journeys. Unnecessary fuel burning on approach is not only ridiculous from a green perspective, but leads to a great deal of noise and inconvenience for individuals.
In itself, that is the source of delays. As we have heard from a number of colleagues, one in three flights might be significantly delayed by 2030 if we do not pass this legislation today. Of course, that also creates more capacity, and although none of us can know exactly what the world is going to look like, I think having that capacity is a good thing: whether we use it or not, it allows us to be more efficient in the way we route our flights and go on holiday, as well as in our world trade, as the Minister said. We are just about to accede to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, one hopes—we are starting the proceedings for that—and we will need our aviation industry to be part of our trade with the rest of the world as well.
The second part is mostly tidying up and modernising, but what it needs to do, and what it does, is reflect our safety record and ensure that we maintain that record. I think that new clause 12, which the Government introduced while the Bill was in the Lords—this is the covid-related aspect of today’s legislation, I suppose—is a very sensible amendment that reflects the situation we are in at present. Personally, I would favour a much more market-based approach to slots in future. However, with the industry on its knees at the moment, now is clearly not the right time for that and in any event it would require global co-operation. The idea that things should be grandfathered down forever and ever does not strike me as a modern way to do things, but I understand that is how we have to operate at the moment, and the proposals in new clause 12 are a sensible suspension of that process while we work through covid.
Part 3 deals with unarmed aircraft or drones. We have heard from many people, including the Minister, that drones are having a huge effect on lots of important areas. They can be a real boon to many industries, including search and rescue and medical supplies, and are also a very engaging hobby, as I have seen for myself when walking up in the Staffordshire moorlands.
I have no desire—nor, I am sure, do the Government—to demonise responsible owners of drones who are having fun with them, getting out and enjoying the great outdoors. However, we need measures to guard against malicious use, and we also need sensitive sites to be able to defend themselves. That includes airports, as we saw at Gatwick, and some of our most sensitive sites, such as nuclear sites; it also includes prisons, as many have said. The idea that drones can get around prisons, or get over and into prisons, is one that nobody should tolerate, and I know the police are very keen for us to get this legislation passed so that we can cut down on what is going on there. We also need a solution so that a single sighting of a drone does not close an airport, and the measures in the Bill mean that we will not see repeats of what happened at Gatwick.
I will conclude, because I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) is desperate to stand up and make his speech; I can see him grinning. This is a solid piece of legislation. I am glad that it has cross-party support. It has already been tried and tested in the Lords, with amendments incorporated into it. This is how the House should proceed with measures such as this, which are all about ensuring that we are battle-ready for both the present and future in important industries such as aviation that have such an important part to play in our future. I commend the Minister for his opening speech and for all his work on the Bill.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) for his excellent speech. First, I would like to join others in paying tribute to Captain Tom. I felt last year that he was almost a grandfather to the nation. We have definitely lost a member of our British family in the last few hours, and I send my condolences to his family. He was truly one of the best of us.
I will speak primarily to parts 1 and 3. I thank the Ministers and all involved with the Bill, which does something quite transformative for not just the industry but the country. The last major change to legislation in this area happened in the 1950s. It is quite incredible to think that the rules and legislation on this industry have not changed in that time, given that the industry has shaped not just how we live but how we look at the world, how we understand other cultures and how we understand one another, and has made the world a little bit smaller as technology has advanced.
For many years as a student, I worked at an airport. I did everything from cleaning toilets to patrolling car parks—not that I was particularly threatening when walking around in my yellow jacket. What I saw back then was the incredible passion of those who work in the airline industry—everyone from those who made sure that the planes were safe to fly to those who were flying them. It is right for Government to ensure that, as we look to the next 20, 30, 40 and 50 years, we have an ambitious plan that puts security, safety and the traveller at the heart of it. Part 1, which relates to the collaborative approach and the ways in which airlines can work together, does that. It is so important to ensure that passengers are put at the heart of this, and the Bill does that very well.
I mentioned that the last major change was made in the 1950s. That reminds me, as a science fiction fan, of the prediction by Arthur C. Clarke in 1945 of the idea of satellites. Back then, that was truly science fiction. We did not imagine that satellites would exist in the way they do today, and they have transformed our lives in so many ways. With this Bill, and in particular part 3, we are seeing what was science fiction being transformed into science fact.
The role of drones in society over just a few years has been transformative. Organisations such as Amazon use them to deliver parcels. There are medical opportunities —for example, to deliver vaccines, especially in far-flung countries where it is perhaps easier to travel long distances by air, via unmanned vehicles, than it would be in the UK.
With every good move in technology and in the shift from fiction to fact, we have to take into account the impact on real lives. Given the impact that unmanned vehicles could have on society, it is right that the Bill gives the Home Office and the police powers to ensure that these vehicles are used in the right way and do not create more danger and risk to those around us. We have heard excellent speeches about drones being used to drop illicit substances and items into prisons, and we have heard about the dangers of drones at airports, potentially risking lives by flying too close or even flying into manned vehicles.
When we look forward, we have got to look at this issue in the round, and the Bill really does that. It enables additional police powers and creates the ability to have an industry around drones that will put up to £42 billion into the economy by 2030. It is creating a lot of opportunity, but in a safe way.
When people look back in 50 or 60 years’ time to the legislation being put in place now, I believe they will look at this Bill and see how balanced it was, how forward-thinking it was and how it enabled us to ensure that legislation and Bills were in place to protect society, while not binding the hands of those who want to develop new opportunities to create technology that can transform the society we live in.
Mike Kane
Before summing up the debate, I would like once again to offer Her Majesty’s official Opposition’s condolences to the family and friends of Sir Tom Moore. While we hurt today, he reminded us that tomorrow will be a better day.
It has been a terrific debate—really well informed and the House at its best. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, it is about co-operation and trying to get our aviation sector to a better place in a difficult time. I thank the Members who have contributed today. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said that our airways are part of our critical national infrastructure, and that is how we should treat them. Let us make sure that we improve them. If there is a hold-up at Treasury, as he says, let us get past that and do this for the good of the industry and the country.
As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said, while drones can be a force for good in the world, they can be a force for evil, with malicious use by the drug barons and others, and that is why we need to have better police powers, which are intended to be in this Bill.
The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) said it is crucial we find a way to redress the environmental impact of aviation. Nobody would be against that and that is what we all seek to do. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has grappled with the issues of having one of the world’s major airports in his constituency. The approach is piecemeal to a certain extent, and we do need a comprehensive strategy, and let us hope we get there in the near future.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) has expertise and is a pilot himself. He spoke of a single authority to broker co-operation. That is what the Bill hopes to achieve. Airspace modernisation will be a benefit for small craft such as the one he flies; as it happens, I am sure the Secretary of State will also be pleased by that. He also rightly pointed out the effect of the pandemic on regional airports. While we welcome the business rates support, we know that for some airports that hardly touched the sides, and I will come back to that point in a second.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) spoke about quicker, quieter, cleaner journeys, and that is what is required. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), whom I praise for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on general aviation, said that the best days lie ahead for aviation, and I believe that. With electric flights, hydrogen flights and clean fuel flights, there is the opportunity to modernise. Labour has called for a further sector-specific deal, and he echoed that by saying that further support is required and not only in aviation. As he mentioned, we can inspire our young people into STEM subjects and the industry.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) rightly pointed out that we enable residents to have a say through consultation, and that is important. That point was echoed by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). It is unimaginable that the airspace above the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) has not been modernised since the 1950s. Since then, Yuri Gagarin went into space and Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. It is time for this legislation.
As ever, my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford spoke about the immense benefits that drone technology will bring to the Northern Ireland economy. The Minister and I cover maritime as well, and there is just the search and rescue capability we have not even thought of that can be inspired by drone technology and, again, we hope to see that come on stream.
The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), whose airport lies between Manchester’s in my constituency and John Lennon airport, is right. Our skies are packed in good times, and we need better co-ordination. He said it: we need to set our eyes on the horizon and to be looking 50 years ahead. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) said we need to future-proof our airspace for the world we want to see again. Finally, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who has just spoken about his real lived experience of working in an airport—there is nothing quite like it—said that security, safety and the passenger experience have to be at the heart of what we do. I hope that we can explore some of those themes further in the Bill Committee.
Robert Courts
With the leave of the House, I would like to sum up the debate for the Government. May I also, at the outset, associate myself and Her Majesty’s Government with the comments from all hon. Members about the very sad passing of Captain Sir Tom Moore? He was perhaps the perfect exemplar of that golden generation. He was a gentleman, an inspiration, a light in the covid darkness and a cheerful ray of hope to all of the country, and of course, above all, to his family, to whom we send our condolences. He will be terribly missed not only by them, but by the whole nation.
I thank hon. Members for all the contributions to the debate we have heard today. I entirely associate myself with the comments the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) has just made: this has been an exceptionally well-informed, constructive and interesting debate. I will turn to as many of the points as I can today without, I hope, droning on too long, but if there are any points that I do not manage to fly through in time or any points that I do not sufficiently land, I will return to hon. Members in writing. [Laughter.] I will stop there, I promise.
I turn first to the funding for airspace change, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and, indeed, the hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). The Government recognise entirely the challenging times the sector is facing due to covid, but the Government are confident, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) argued, that the sector will recover. While that may take some time, it does not diminish the historic importance and the need for our airspace to be modernised.
The inefficiencies in our existing airspace design, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), for example—he spoke about its not having changed since the 1950s—will continue to cause delays for passengers and unnecessary emissions for our environment. That has rightly been a focus of many hon. Members’ speeches today, as we look forward to jet zero and a clean aviation sector in future, as have the problems with noise, which I will turn to in a moment.
It is important for me, however, to be clear up front that, while we recognise the severe impact that covid-19 is having on the aviation sector, the user pays policy principle is an important one: those who stand to benefit from airspace change should pay for the costs of such a change. In the light of the pandemic and its effects, at the moment most airports have paused their work on airspace change, but the modernisation remains critical to deliver that additional capacity and improve access to airspace for different users. I am particularly mindful of the comments that my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) made about other types of air users, including, of course, General Aviation.
This modernisation also brings environmental benefits by reducing emissions, such as from the stacking talked about by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan). The Government have asked the Airspace Change Organising Group to revisit the master plan for airspace change in this light, and to ensure that the benefits of the programme are realised and that the investment already made is not lost.
Engagement with communities is key, and it has rightly been a major part of the debate today. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). As all those Members and others pointed out in today’s debate, there is a need for airspace change to take account not just of the needs of industry, but of the effects on all affected stakeholders, including, of course, local communities. I would therefore like to reassure all Members that this is taken account of already through the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP 1616 airspace change process. This requires an airspace change proposal, whether part of the airspace modernisation programme or not, to pass a series of gateways, each of which the CAA must approve before it can progress to the next stage. That was introduced in 2018 and replaces the previous CAP 725 process. Some communities and hon. Members are becoming familiar with it.
It is separate from the planning process. CAP 1616 is more comprehensive than the process it succeeds. It provides communities and other interested parties, such as General Aviation, other airports, the Ministry of Defence and commercial aviation, with greater opportunities to comment on and influence airspace changes that could affect them. They will have more opportunities than they have had before. I hope that will be of assistance to all Members who have spoken on that today. The seven steps that an airspace sponsor must go through to facilitate a change in its airspace are laid out there.
If I could turn to some specific points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, I am of course aware of the London Luton airport airspace change proposal, which is currently out for consultation. I have received several representations from hon. Members about that. I met my hon. Friend in December to talk about and listen to his constituents’ concerns. He is a powerful advocate for them and has made their views very clearly heard. As I know he will know, my Department is not involved in the consultation, and I cannot comment on its merits for regulatory and legal reasons. However, I urged his constituents to engage with the consultation and to ensure that Luton airport and NATS are fully alive to their concerns. Both Luton airport and NATS are obliged by the regulatory requirements of CAP 1616 to take such concerns into account as they finalise their proposals. This is a vital requirement of the process.
Another big feature of the debate today has been noise. It was mentioned in particular by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), but by other Members as well, and it is closely related to the community consultation point. Of course, the Government recognise that noise can have a significant impact on people’s lives, which is why we introduced new metrics and appraisal guidance in October 2017 to assess noise impacts and their effects on health and quality of life. These will ensure that future airspace changes consider noise impacts much further away from airports than they do at present and that new technology to ensure the more efficient use of our airspace will also produce noise reduction benefits.
I will just say a couple of words about performance-based navigations—PBNs—as I think the House will be interested. They basically use the same equipment as satellite navigation systems in our cars and will improve the accuracy of where aircraft fly, rather than in broad corridors as they do at present. That will provide opportunities to avoid, where possible, noise-sensitive areas including villages or towns. However, it is of course true that in some cases airspace modernisation may result in more concentrated air traffic over communities, but in those cases it may be possible to create multiple concentrated PBN routes that are designed to disperse aircraft to some degree and provide known respite to communities exposed to noise. The Government are also considering how to take forward noise proposals that were contained in the Aviation 2050 Green Paper published in 2015.
I would like to say a word or two following the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) on flights over areas of outstanding natural beauty. I recognise his huge expertise in both the natural world and aviation. He is justly respected for that. Flights over AONBs are not prohibited. The Government’s air navigation guidance issued to the CAA in October 2017 states that aircraft operators should try to avoid flying over AONBs below 7,000 feet when it is practicable to do so. It is not possible to prohibit flights, as a number of UK airports are close to AONBs or national parks, so there are no powers to prevent flying at low altitude over AONBs for a number of reasons. The Government’s air navigation guidance, as my right hon. Friend said, also requires new sponsors of airspace change proposals to take account of AONBs and national parks when designing their flightpaths.
My hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for South West Bedfordshire made a number of points about space and satellites. They rightly pointed out that the use of new technologies offers exciting opportunities for the UK and provides the opportunity to reduce emissions. For example, the ability to track aircraft over the high seas, which is currently impossible, will enable the more accurate prediction of arrival times. That is a key aim of the airspace modernisation strategy, for all the reasons related to tackling climate change and to secure the greener future that we all wish to see. I pay tribute to the comments that were made not only by my hon. Friends but by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay and others. I assure the House that the Government continue to develop their space policy and we are working hard with our industrial partners to ensure that we maximise the benefits.
A number of Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Sedgefield and for St Austell and Newquay, mentioned slots. While demand for aviation remains low, it is critical that we support the aviation sector so that it is able to restart services immediately when the pandemic allows. The provisions on slots in part 2 of the Bill will help to support the aviation sector in the short term, while also reducing the need for environmentally damaging ghost flights and their financial impact.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North raised specific concerns. For each future scheduling period, instead of a full alleviation we will be able to look at the data and consider whether it is appropriate to set a lower percentage—for example, 50%—for the slot-usage rule. The data will also help us to consider whether and what conditions could be applied to any alleviation relating to the management of slots. I am keen to point out to all Members that this is a necessary, temporary support measure that will help the industry through the coming years.
The conditions to which I refer could enable available capacity to be backfilled with regional connections or additional freight capacity. I am particularly keen to point that out because the hon. Member for Edinburgh West and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield both referred to it. My hon. Friend also asked whether I would be happy to meet; of course I would, as I would be happy to meet any Members who would like to discuss that or any other issue in the Bill in detail over the weeks ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay talked about the longer-term reform of slots allocation, the desirability of which I recognise. It will deliver a more dynamic marketplace that is competitive, supports growth and offers high levels of consumer choice. As the UK aviation market recovers from the impacts of covid-19, the Government will need to consider the impact on the industry and reflect that in any review of slots policy. Given the global nature of slots, this work will involve consultation with UK, European and international stakeholders, and the slot-allocation process will be considered in the round with any future review of aviation policy.
Let me return to unmanned aircraft. The hon. Member for South Antrim gave us a vivid and personal description of the difficulties that can be engendered by the malicious use of unmanned aircraft. The Bill will ensure that the police are able to tackle effectively the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft, building on some existing provisions in the Air Navigation Order 2016. It provides them with some new powers, such as the ability to require a person to land an unmanned aircraft, to which I have referred already.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) noted, the Bill gives police the powers to investigate criminal offences committed at prisons using drones, while also providing prisons with the powers to use counter-drone technology. The Government have been clear that we will do all we can to ensure that the UK firmly establishes itself as a world leader in unmanned-aircraft technology, but we are alive to the dangers posed by the careless or malicious use of the technology, as the hon. Members for Edinburgh West and for Strangford rightly urged us to be.
One or two Members have recognised the challenges involved for policing, which the Government of course recognise. The police need the tools that are required. We have taken a range of actions to ensure that the police are equipped to tackle the new threat that unmanned aircraft pose, and it is critical that the police have been involved in all stages of the Bill’s development.
Let me turn to some specific points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire and for Warrington South, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and some others. The Department has worked closely with the Home Office, the police and the CAA to ensure that once the Bill becomes law its powers are realistic to implement. To aid the police in their implementation, we will provide officers with briefings, general guidance and guidance documents. On wider police resourcing, a new team in the National Police Chiefs’ Council working to the national lead has been set up to co-ordinate and govern UK police counter-unmanned aircraft activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford gave us a vivid description of the future and the benefits that drones can provide. The Government absolutely want to capture the benefits of unmanned aircraft for consumers and aim to provide an agile regulatory landscape for that.
I was asked to respond to some specific points, and I will do so briefly before I conclude. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) asked me in his opening speech about the powers of the Secretary of State and the safeguards. I point him first towards what is contained in the Bill: it is implicit that a direction should be practically possible to be carried out. There is a duty to consult in clause 2(3) and (4), and there is the appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal in schedule 1. I have engaged with the AOA on the points that he raised at the beginning of his speech. The hon. Member for South Antrim asked me about laser pens. I direct him to articles 240 and 241 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 and the Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018, which contain those powers already; hence they are not in the Bill.
I will pause and say a word or two about general aviation because my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay made a particularly inspiring speech. I pay tribute to the work he has done on the all-party parliamentary group on general aviation. He spoke vividly about STEM, which is massively important for us. It was an outstanding speech, and I would really like another debate to respond to that alone—perhaps another time. It is safe to say for now that we want the UK to be the best place in the world for aviation, and that very much starts at the grassroots.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park asked me about privacy and why it is not in the Bill. It is already taken into account in a number of areas such as the Data Protection Act 2018 and the general data protection regulation, but in this sphere the implementing regulation requires all operators who have a sensor able to capture personal data to be registered. I hope that that provides her with some reassurance. She also asked about new offences and keeping the ability to regulate as drone technology increases. Of course, we keep that under review. There is power in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 that enables us to make air navigation orders to address precisely that point.
I thank the House for listening to me for a little longer than usual while I addressed those specific points. The Bill will support the modernisation of our airspace and the air traffic licensing framework, provide alleviation from the 80/20 rule I have referred to and provide enforcement powers to help the police tackle the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft. I look forward enormously to working with hon. Members across the House to ensure that this important legislation reaches the statute book shortly. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 23 February 2021.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which they are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(David Rutley.)
Question agreed to.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(David Rutley.)
Question agreed to.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 9th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 February 2021 - (9 Feb 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points to make. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I remind hon. Members about the importance of social distancing. Spaces for Members are clearly marked—I think we have grasped that. Mr Speaker has asked Members to wear face coverings in Committee, except when they are speaking. I will not be wearing my face mask, because I will be interjecting and it would take time to put it on and off, but if you would do so, that would be great. The Hansard Reporters would be grateful if Members emailed any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 9 February) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 9 February;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 11 February;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 23 February;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7; Schedules 1 and 2; Clauses 8 and 9; Schedules 3 and 4; Clause 10; Schedules 5 and 6; Clause 11; Schedule 7; Clauses 12 and 13; Schedule 8; Clause 14; Schedule 9; Clause 15; Schedule 10; Clause 16; Schedule 11; Clauses 17 to 22; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 23 February.—(Robert Courts.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Robert Courts.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. We will now begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, on the table. This shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause or schedule that the amendment affects. We begin our proceedings with the Question that clause 1 stand part of the Bill, and I ask the Minister to get stuck in.
Clause 1
Meaning of “airspace change proposal”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. Clause 1 provides a definition of “airspace change proposal”, which is referred to in clauses 2 and 3. An airspace change proposal is a proposal that
“relates to managed airspace or the flight procedures or air traffic control procedures used within it”
and which is submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority for approval. The powers in part 1 of the Bill will provide vital support for a modernisation of our airspace, helping to make journeys quicker, quieter and cleaner, and to maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in aviation. Clause 1 is required in order to provide clarity on what is within the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers to direct, which we will come to under later clauses in part 1. I therefore beg to move that this clause remain part of the Bill.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I concur with the Minister: it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles.
This country has a world-class aviation sector—the third largest on the planet. We want to protect that, grow it and make it better. We also want to facilitate the study of STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—for all our young people who want to go in for it. We will get past this pandemic and we will keep our eyes on the horizon, and I think that this legislation will help us to do that.
We are discussing airspace modernisation in the UK. Our airspace is an invisible part of our vital infrastructure. It was originally designed in the 1950s and ’60s and therefore needs urgent modernisation. In fact, we now have an analogue system in a digital age. It needs to be upgraded. We support that ambition, and I know that the Minister is keen on that ambition as well.
In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Rosser pointed out that not only has airspace provision not been updated in this House since the ’50s or ’60s, but the provision for drone technology—my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South will deal with that when we get there—has not been updated since the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, and he pointed out that that is closer to Yuri Gagarin’s first trip into space than it is to today. For the record, I point out that when Yuri Gagarin was the first cosmonaut, or the first human to enter the cosmos, on 12 April 1961, he came to the UK in July that year and landed at Manchester airport in my constituency. He was invited by the Amalgamated Union of Foundry Workers. He visited their offices in Moss Side after he landed in my constituency and then went on to a civic reception at Manchester Town Hall. Members can tell that I am a Mancunian to the core, so I wanted to get that on the record.
We currently have the covid crisis and there is limited air traffic, but we need to ensure that our airspace—our infrastructure in the sky—is fit for a post-pandemic world. By simplifying UK airspace, we make it more efficient, it will deliver more precise and more direct routes, prevent rising delays and reduce congestion, and, more importantly in this eco-friendly world, it will become more sustainable. The Airport Operators Association is concerned about the lack of definition in the enforcement power in the clause. Although the Government have presented this as necessary for the implementation of airspace modernisation, a current or future Secretary of State could use the power for other airspace-related purposes.
I therefore again raise my concern, as I did on the Floor of the House last week, about the scope of the powers attributed to the Secretary of State for Transport by the clause. I understand that the Minister has engaged with the AOA over its concerns. Despite his assurances about the duty to consult—there is a robust appeals process—I still have misgivings as to why the Bill should not simply have a specific definition of the powers. I therefore ask the Minister to consider this matter and perhaps explain to the Committee why that has been omitted.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. He is absolutely right to set this in an historic context, because this is an historic piece of legislation that updates an historic legacy airspace environment, and of course makes it fit for the new technology that we will discuss later. It will make a simpler, more efficient airspace.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s specific points on enforcements powers, his concern is that a future Secretary of State might use them for other airspace-related purposes. Any Bill has to be a balance between enabling the flexibility of the Government to take the steps required. Airspace in particular, as we will discuss when we come to drone technology, is in the vanguard of technological change, so there has to be an element of flexibility built in. I refer the hon. Gentleman and the Committee to the safeguards that exist within the remainder of this part of the Bill. I will stray from this clause in so referring to them but, with your permission, Sir Charles, I will briefly deal with them, and we will come back to them later when we get to clause 7.
There are, for example, some requirements in advance of the safeguard ever being used. It is intended to be a last resort if the airspace change is not progressed voluntarily. That is the Government’s initial intention. It is therefore to be limited, certainly at the outset. It is meant to be within the context of the CAA’s airspace strategy. The CAA’s oversight team is to work with airports before it recommends to the Secretary of State that the power is used. It is not intended to be used where there are factors outside the airspace sponsor’s control. So my first point is that before we ever get to the stage of the Secretary of State using his powers, there are numerous steps that ought to be taken in advance.
The Secretary of State’s reasons for so acting under clause 4 are expected to be in writing and are published, so there is democratic and press scrutiny of any such decision. We will come to clause 7 and enforcement and appeals in due course, but I will briefly refer to them now to address the point that the hon. Gentleman made. There are grounds for an appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunals: an error of fact that the decision was wrong in law, or discretion was exercised, but an error was made in the context of that discretion being exercised. This is a balanced act. There is a considerable amount of consultation or engagement in advance, and various safeguards are built in, which are very much on a par with what we seek in other regulatory spheres. For those reasons, I submit that no further definition is required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
It may not have escaped colleagues’ attention that there was a little crosswind as we started the Bill. Minister, you do not need to move anything. When I call it, you just stand up and make a speech. Does that make sense? You do not need to do any ancillary stuff around that. I will be more certain in my decision making.
Clause 2
Direction to progress airspace change proposal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause gives the Secretary of State the power to direct a person involved in airspace change, following the consultation I referred to a moment ago, to prepare or submit an airspace change proposal to the CAA or take steps to obtain its approval following submission or to review its operation following implementation.
These powers will ensure that airspace change proposals that assist in delivery of the CAA’s airspace strategy can be taken forward if a sponsor does not do so voluntarily. We intend the powers to be used, at least initially, to deliver changes identified in the airspace change masterplan, as the intention is for this to be incorporated into the CAA’s airspace strategy. This will ensure that airspace modernisation can be achieved to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys.
Without this clause, the Secretary of State would not be able to ensure that airspace change proposals identified as being important in helping to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy are taken forward. That would mean that an airport could hold up other airports if their airspace change proposals were interdependent, as many are and would be. The full benefits of modernisation would therefore not be realised without those powers.
Mike Kane
This takes us to the crux of the Bill. Upgrading UK airspace is a complex process at the best of times and in normal times, but we do not have normal times. It has to be paid for and delivered by the industry. While we support that, national air traffic control is responsible for modernisation of the en route network. Airports modernise approach and departure routes in their local airspace, through a process set out by the Civil Aviation Authority publication CAP1616. As modernisation is complex, particularly in the south-east of England, where there are high levels of interdependence between airports sharing the same airspace, the industry is committed to working to a masterplan. We know that the process is managed through the Airspace Change Organising Group, with oversight from the CAA, the DFT and, therefore, the Minister.
The pandemic has caused some of this work to slow down, which is my concern. The Minister knows that I have pushed him on this publicly and privately. Airports in the UK are close to mothballing at the moment—I am not going to be critical. We have asked for an aviation-specific support package, and I know that the Government have given some packages to airports and airlines, but we know they are in big trouble. They are huge capital assets that are bleeding cash as we speak and getting no passengers through, which is their key revenue. They are now beginning to shut down their airspace change teams—if not today, then in the next few weeks, if the Government’s package does not come through.
The Airspace Change Organising Group is still waiting for the funding promised last year by the Chancellor to continue its work. Without that, the modernisation of the UK’s airspace, where we have the third biggest industry on the planet, world beating and world leading, will fail. The impact of covid on the industry’s finances makes paying for the programme even more difficult. The Airport Operators Association has suggested that the Government should consider helping out with the costs, as airports lead the way for our UK economy out of the pandemic.
The Minister and I share the same enthusiasm for this, and we both agree that there is an urgent requirement for airspace to be modernised in order to achieve the environmental, noise and operational benefits. Therefore, I cannot see how the Bill will ensure that will happen. How can this clause ensure that Government direction will be followed when the sector simply does not have the means to pay for it currently? That is my main point for the Minister today.
Robert Courts
Clearly, the Government recognise the great challenge that the aviation sector faces at the moment. I will not rehearse the wide economic measures that the Government have undertaken in order to support all businesses—I know that the shadow Minister is aware of those and I would drift a long way from the purpose of the Bill if I did rehearse them. However, I will refer to the business rates relief that we introduced recently, and I will observe that, although covid is clearly having a substantial impact on the industry, aviation will recover in the long term. It will remain a central part of the UK—of its trade policy, its strategy and its place in the world. It is a successful—indeed, world-leading—industry, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly referred to it, and I am confident that it will return to that place in due course.
It is a long-standing policy that those who benefit from an aviation policy—air passengers—ought to pay for it. It is therefore right that we continue that policy within the context of the Bill. However, in the event that there are some aspects in relation to which the Government might consider taking an alternative view when looking for the ability to fund airspace change, the ability to fund will need to be taken into account in deciding whether or not to give such a direction, because that is what we are dealing with here—whether the Secretary of State directs that an airport should bring an airspace change forward. The Secretary of State will continue to consider the ability to fund as a part of that process.
The Government recognise that there may be occasions when small airports require financial assistance to carry out some aspects of an airspace change proposal. We would expect the CAA’s oversight team to work with the airport operator before recommending that the Secretary of State use those powers in the first place with regard to an airspace change proposal. If at that time the airport operator expressed concern that it did not have sufficient funding for it to proceed with a particular proposal, we would expect that oversight team to suggest alternative solutions.
There are a number of possible alternative solutions, and I will quickly refer to them: an alternative sponsor might pay for the changes; or there might be alternative funding support; or there may be, on a case-by-case basis, Government funding under section 34(1)(b) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, if an ACP were to have an adverse financial impact. We are a long way away from that circumstance, as there are a number of steps that we could take in due course. In any event, the funding—the payment basis—would be taken into account before it is directed that those powers are exercised.
Mike Kane
I thank the Minister for that response. I think that we will have numerous conversations in the months ahead about the mechanisms, which he has quite rightly outlined, that he can use to bring forward the airspace modernisation programme. We must not fail on this programme, because it is vital for the industry, including for its confidence as we bounce back post pandemic, hopefully later this year. I will continue to hold the Minister’s feet to the fire on this issue, if he does not mind—and I will do so even if he does mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Direction to co-operate in airspace change proposal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause gives the Secretary of State a power to direct a person involved in airspace change to co-operate with another person involved in airspace change. This direction might be needed if, for example, the original sponsor was unable to progress an airspace change proposal, so that someone else agrees to progress it but requires assistance from the original sponsor in order to do so.
Without the clause, an ACP that was identified as being important in delivering the CAA’s airspace strategy may not be taken forward if the original sponsor is unwilling, or unable, for any reason—such as those we have touched on already, or for other reasons—to take the ACP forward. The clause is therefore important to ensure that if an alternative sponsor were to become involved in progressing an ACP, the original sponsor can be compelled, if necessary, to co-operate in ways that the Secretary of State considers appropriate, such as providing information and documents to enable that ACP to progress.
Again, this measure is intended to ensure that airspace modernisation can be achieved quickly, in order to deliver the quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys that we would all like to see.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Directions under sections 2 and 3: supplemental
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause requires that directions given by the Secretary of State under clauses 2 or 3 must be given in writing and published, and that notices of variation and revocation must also be published. It is essential that any such direction is made in writing, and that any variation or revocation of a direction is made through such a notice, so that the recipient is clear about what is expected from them.
That direction could specify what the person is expected to do, the dates of tasks they must complete, and requirements to keep the CAA informed of progress on these. A direction given under clause 3 can also specify information or documents to be provided by a person directed to co-operate in an ACP, and the date by when this must be done. Without the clause, what is expected of a directed person may not be clear, and this could risk the direction not being complied with and not being properly enforceable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Delegation of functions to CAA
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause gives the Secretary of State powers to delegate the Secretary of State’s functions under clauses 2 to 4 to the CAA, with a notice of this in writing to be published by the CAA. It enables the Secretary of State’s direction-making powers to be delegated to the CAA should this prove to be desirable in the future.
The CAA, as the national airspace regulator, has the expertise to take on this role if so required. Given that both the Secretary of State and the CAA have various roles in relation to airspace change, it is clear that appropriate internal governance structures would need to be put in place in both organisations to manage any possible conflict of interest risks, as required.
Without the clause, the Secretary of State would lack the flexibility to be able to delegate functions to the CAA, and would therefore need to amend this primary legislation should it prove desirable in the future to delegate such functions. Although such circumstances are not currently foreseen, a lack of flexibility could risk delivering the CAA’s airspace strategy and the successful delivery of the airspace modernisation programme if circumstances arise in the future whereby the Secretary of State was no longer better placed to exercise those direction-making powers.
Mike Kane
As the Minister eloquently outlines, this will give the Secretary of State the power to delegate to the CAA. However, the Minister will be aware that the Airport Operators Association believes that there is a fundamental conflict of interest with this proposal, and I would like to explore that for a few minutes. The Government have sought to reassure Parliament and the industry that appropriate separation would be maintained with the CAA in the exercise of these functions. Although there may be a significant extent to which this is possible in theory, it fails to address the perception challenge. In particular, the regulator is opened up to criticism for bias from parties which have agreed with the specific CAP1616 policies I referred to earlier being mandated. Some communities around airports already believe that the CAA is biased towards industry, and this would help neither that perception, nor the importance of rebuilding trust between the aviation sector industry, the regulators and communities.
When we debated the Bill on the Floor of the House last week, a number of colleagues on the Government Benches pointed out that communities often feel overlooked when it comes to airspace change and noise. I know this is of particular concern to a number of Conservative Members who raised it last week.
Could there be a conflict of interest where the Secretary of State can delegate power to enforce a programme to the CAA? Does the Minister think that? Does the Minister agree with the Airport Operators Association that the CAA is established to act as a neutral adjudicator of CAP1616 proposals? If the regulator is asked to enforce an ACP, is it being asked to mandate an application that it will have to make a judgment of suitability on? Is there a conflict of interest with the CAA being delegated enforcement powers when it is also responsible for making the judgment on suitability? It appears that it will act as both judge and jury, and I hope that the Minister will explore that conflict today.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points. There are a number of answers that I will give—perhaps three. First, there is the safeguard to which I referred to at the beginning of our debate, which is an overarching safeguard in any event against any decision that is made. Secondly, there is the CAP1616 process, which stands out with this Bill. It is a consultation process that started in 2018, so it is relatively recent. That will enable a great deal more consultation for local communities than in the past, and will help to manage such concerns.
With regards to the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s points on the internal potential for a conflict of interest, I accept that in delegatory responsibility terms there will be a need to ensure that such governance structures are in place. I stress that we do not plan to delegate these at present, but that is in order to build in flexibility for the Bill in future. Such internal governance structures would need to be put in place to manage any potential conflict to which, quite rightly, he alerts us.
The CAA has already created an internal governance structure that separates out its role in tracking airspace change proposals and advising on the use, powers and decisions on ACPs. For example, this includes different directors, with decision making kept separate up to board level. The CAA is able to create a new team to take on responsibilities related to directing an ACP, should this power be delegated to it by the Secretary of State. Those structures will need to be created; I am confident that they can be.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Provision of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 6 amends an existing information-gathering power that is contained in section 84 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. This will enable the CAA to request any information that it considers that it needs from persons involved in airspace change, to assist the CAA in carrying out its function under part 1 of the Bill or for the purpose of giving any advice, assistance or information to the Secretary of State, in connection with the performance of the Secretary of State’s functions under part 1.
Without the clause, the CAA could not be sure that all relevant information had been taken into consideration from bodies before advising that a direction should be given. This clause will minimise the risk of challenge from the body giving a direction, which could otherwise argue that not all relevant information had been considered. The clause is therefore needed to support part 1 and overall this will help to support the delivery of the airspace strategy, with the aims that we are all agreed upon today.
The Chair
Colleagues are content—excellent. [Hon. Members: “Aye.”] That was said with such enthusiasm, colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Appeals and enforcement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
The purpose of clause 7 is to introduce schedule 1. It says:
“Schedule 1 makes provision for appeals against decisions to give or vary directions under sections 2 and 3…Schedule 2 makes provision for the CAA to enforce directions and connected appeals.”
These are the provisions to which I referred at the beginning of our discussions.
The appeals set out in schedule 1 could also be brought against decisions given by the CAA, if the functions of the Secretary of State, under part 1, are delegated to it. The recipient of the direction can appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Schedule 1 sets out the process that must be followed and the grounds for the appeal. Without that schedule, the recipient of a direction could not appeal against the decision and that would not be fair, given that non-compliance with a direction could lead to a penalty fine.
Schedule 2 sets out the procedure for the CAA to issue contravention notices, enforcement orders, penalties for contravention of enforcement orders, which can be either a fixed amount, up to 10% of annual turnover, or 0.1% of daily turnover, and appeal rights for those. Without schedule 2, the CAA would not be able to enforce the direction to ensure that bodies that do not comply with it are penalised. The threat of a penalty fine clearly should act as a deterrent on non-compliance and incentivise the recipient of a direction to progress or to co-operate in an ACP, which will in turn help to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy.
The Chair
The question is that clause 7 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say ‘Aye’. [Hon. Members: “Aye!”] As many as are of the contrary opinion say, ‘No’. The Ayes have it. We must have more enthusiasm, colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 8
Part 1: interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 8 provides definitions of various terms used throughout part 1. Its function is to provide clarity and to aid interpretation of the powers in the Bill, so that they may be used effectively to direct airspace change proposals, as is standard in Acts of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Licensed air traffic services: modifying the licence and related appeals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 9 will give the CAA a more effective power to modify the conditions of the licence held by NATS En Route plc—known as NERL—to provide air traffic services in the United Kingdom. It makes provisions to replace the existing processes that were set out in the Transport Act 2000, and includes new appeal rights for the licence holder and certain other parties who are materially affected by the decision.
The licence holder provides air traffic services to ensure that aircraft carry passengers and freight safely and efficiently through our airspace. The CAA, as the industry regulator, is responsible for modifying conditions of the licence. However, the current process is not fit for purpose, because any modification requires agreement from the licence holder. If agreement cannot be reached the matter can be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority for a determination.
The clause will enable the CAA to make a modification without having to obtain such agreement, but while enabling the licence holder to appeal against the decision—to ensure, of course, that the CAA is accountable. That will give the CAA greater flexibility in modifying licence conditions, the better to serve consumers, airlines, passengers, cargo operators and airport operators.
The clause also confers on the Secretary of State the power to amend the terms of the licence that make provision for its duration and set out the procedure for doing so. For example, it will enable the Secretary of State to extend the licence notice period from the current 10 years to 15 years. That will enable the licence holder to have access to more efficient financing.
Clause 9 also introduces schedules 3 and 4. Schedule 3 introduces a new process, by which the CMA may consider appeals against decisions by the CAA to modify conditions of the licence to provide air traffic services. The changes made by the Bill will enable the CAA to change a licence condition after appropriate consultation. The schedule will enable the licence holder, airlines, and certain airports that are materially affected by the CAA’s decision to modify a licence condition, to appeal against the decision.
Those airports would need to be prescribed in secondary legislation. We intend appeal rights to be given to airports that receive a London approach service from the licence holder as a monopoly provider. At present, those are London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted.
The provisions also deal with the grounds on which an appeal may be allowed, the steps that the CMA may take when it determines an appeal, the time limits for determination of an appeal and publication of the appeal determination. The appeal rights are essential to ensure that the CAA is accountable for its decisions, and to safeguard the interest of the licence holder and others whose interests are materially affected by the CAA’s decision making.
Schedule 4 makes detailed provision for the procedure by which the CMA receives, considers and determines appeals against decisions by the CAA to modify conditions in the licence to provide air traffic services. The new licensing framework will enable the CAA to modify a licence condition after appropriate consultation. This schedule will enable the licence holder, airlines and certain airports to appeal the CAA decision to modify licence conditions. It sets out in detail the procedure that applies to the appeal, culminating in it being determined by the CMA.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
The clause will give the CAA the powers it needs to enforce breaches of the licence in the most effective and proportionate way.
As I said a moment ago, the licence allows the holder to provide air traffic services, enabling aircraft to carry passengers and freight safely and efficiently through our airspace. It is therefore important that the licensing regime reflects current best practice and continues to deliver the better outcomes for consumers to which I have referred.
The existing enforcement regime is not fit for purpose. It is unnecessarily bureaucratic and inflexible, and it lacks proportionality. The CAA, for example, is unable to take enforcement action in respect of past breaches that have ceased, and there is no penalty regime, which is available in other regulated sectors.
The new powers will enable the CAA to take a stepped approach to enforcement by giving it the flexibility to impose a less serious sanction at an earlier stage, escalating that if non-compliance persists. The new appeal rights for the licence holder will ensure that the CAA remains accountable for its enforcement decisions. Amending the CAA’s duty to investigate complaints with the discretion to do so—replacing duty with discretion—will enable both the CAA and NERL to use their resources more effectively.
Schedule 5 gives the CAA the tools it needs to act in the most effective and proportionate way in response to contraventions by the licence holder of its licence conditions or statutory duties. Those tools will enable the CAA to give a contravention notice, an enforcement order or an urgent enforcement order—in accordance with the seriousness of the breach—backed up with the ability to impose financial penalties.
The schedule will enable the CAA to issue effective notices and ensure that the licence holder is treated fairly when the amount of penalty is determined, thus reducing the likelihood of challenge and allowing the provisions of the Bill to function as intended. The licence holder may appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal in respect of enforcement action taken against it. That important safeguard is to ensure that the CAA remains accountable.
Schedule 6 will give the CAA the further tools it needs to investigate breaches by the licence holder of the licence conditions or statutory duties, and to carry out enforcement action in the most effective and proportionate way. It will ensure that the CAA has all the powers it needs to decide whether to take enforcement action, or what enforcement action is appropriate.
To that end, the schedule will enable the CAA to serve notice on persons, requiring them to provide it with information. The CAA may do so in relation to information that it needs to investigate alleged breaches by the licence holder or to take enforcement action in respect of such breaches. It also makes provision to enable the CAA to enforce breaches of the requirement to provide it with information, whether the breach is by virtue of non-compliance, the giving of false information or the destruction, alteration or suppression of relevant documents.
Finally, the schedule will make provision to govern how the CAA determines the amount of a penalty and the right of the person to go to the CAT under the framework. It is expected that the availability of the powers and the threat of enforcement for not complying with them will provide the licence holder with greater incentives to comply, bringing benefits to consumers, while of course the appeal to the CAT provides the essential safeguard.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 11
Air traffic services: consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 11 introduces schedule 7, which contains amendments that are consequential on clauses 9 and 10. Schedule 7 sets out those consequential amendments to existing Acts to ensure alignment with the new legislative framework.
The Bill would introduce a new framework in the Transport Act 2000, governing the new licensing regime for the regulation of the provision of air traffic services. Without making the minor and consequential amendments detailed in schedule 7, we would not have a coherent new licensing regime.
With one exception, all the consequential and minor amendments are made pursuant to provisions in the Transport Act 2000. Most of the amendments will make provisions that amend that Act, to ensure that the nomenclature in it is aligned and compatible with the new legislative framework. A couple of the amendments introduce specific aspects of parallel modern licensing frameworks, for example, to ensure that regulations can make anti-avoidance provision, if a regulated entity attempts to avoid proper application of the provisions.
Schedule 7 would also amend a single provision in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority can properly determine appeals against the CAA’s licence modification decisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 12
Airport slot allocation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This is a slightly difficult aspect and, if I may, I will add one or two extra words. As it is slightly complicated, it is worth going through it slowly.
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 95/93 requires airlines with allocated slots at level 3 airports to use those slots at least 80% of the time in the preceding scheduling period, in order to retain that slot in the upcoming equivalent period. Prior to the covid-19 pandemic, that 80:20 rule of “use it or lose it” helped to encourage efficient use of scarce airport capacity. It also allowed a degree of flexibility for airlines and their operations. There are eight slot-constrained airports in the UK, to which the 80:20 rule applies: Birmingham, Bristol, Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton, Manchester and Stansted.
Due to the unprecedented impact of covid-19, in March last year, the European Commission took the decision to waive the 80:20 rule. Airport co-ordinators were instructed under that waiver, when determining slot allocation for the upcoming summer season, to consider slots as having been operated, regardless of whether they were used. That covered the summer 2020 season and was subsequently extended to cover winter 2020-21.
The UK supported the European Commission’s position. Without that alleviation, airlines may have incurred significant financial costs by operating flights at low-load factors needed to retain those slots. Alleviation has helped to protect future connectivity and airline finances, and reduced the risk of empty or near-empty ghost flights being run to retain the slots, which would have a financial impact on airlines as well as an environmental impact. We anticipate that the effects of covid-19 on the airline industry will regrettably continue for some time. Passenger demand is not predicted to return to 2019 levels until at least 2023.
After the EU transition period ended on 31 December, regulation 95/93 was retained in UK law. However, when it was retained, the power of the Commission to extend the period of alleviation from the 80:20 rule, which was transferred to the Secretary of State, was expressly limited to 2 April 2021. We expect disruption to air travel to continue for a number of years, so it is imperative that the UK has at its disposal the powers to provide alleviation, should the evidence suggest that that is warranted.
Returning to the 80:20 rule, while the covid-19 disruption continues, it might mean that some airlines will protect their commercial interest in retaining their slots by operating fights with empty or near-empty aircraft, despite the associated costs, both financial and environmental. Without this clause, the Government would be unable to provide flexibility on slot usage to deal with the ongoing impacts of the covid-19 pandemic at slot co-ordinated airports beyond the summer 2021 season. That flexibility will also provide certainty, to enable airlines to manage their slots efficiently.
This clause inserts a new article, 10aa, into retained Council regulation 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots in UK airports. This would provide the Secretary of State with a power to provide air carriers with an alleviation of the requirement to operate slots allocated to them 80% of the time in order to retain those slots in the next equivalent scheduling period. This power would be exercisable until 24 August 2024—so it is time limited—and for scheduling periods up to and including winter 2024-25. To allow for flexibility, this clause also includes powers to modify the 80% requirement relating to slots usage, which will be an alternative to applying a full alleviation of the 80:20 rule for a specified scheduling season. This recognises that there might be alternative ratios that could be applied to ensure the efficient use of slots, and then moving back to 80:20 as demand recovers. The Secretary of State will also be able to make certain other modifications to the slot usage rule: for example, setting a deadline for the return of slots not intended for operation, or providing that a waiver should not apply to slots of an airline that ceases operations at an airport.
This clause will also allow the Secretary of State to make certain other changes to the operation of the rules relating to the allocation of slots under regulation 95-93. For example, the Government could change co-ordination parameters to reflect partial closures of airports, adopt temporary rules for the most efficient allocation of unused slots to new entrants, or give the slot co-ordinator enforcement powers, such as where unused slots are not returned with sufficient time to enable them to be effectively re-allocated. Having the powers to vary the 80:20 ratio and modify the operation of the rule in this way will allow appropriate measures to support the sector’s recovery as passenger demand for flights returns. Any such changes would be based on an assessment of the current situation, and would be supported by evidence based on the latest available data.
Mike Kane
The Minister was right to spend a little extra time focusing on this clause, because it will be extraordinarily important in the years to come, as the aviation sector tries to recover. It came into focus this year that one of our national carriers was not acting in the national interest, by using the pandemic to change the terms and conditions of tens of thousands of its workforce. National carriers should always act in the national interest. I am glad to see that some of that damage between the workforce and the management is currently being repaired.
However, it was this national carrier’s grandfathered rights—particularly at Heathrow, and the way it wanted to retain its rights at Gatwick but move out its operation—that brought this issue into focus. Again, it did not seem fair or right to use what is almost a monopoly bias in what, in my opinion, is a very large closed shop when it comes to slots. If I remember rightly, in “Henry V”, when the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to explain female hereditary rights in Salic law, Shakespeare says something that we could also say about airport slots: it is as clear as mud. I am afraid that is what airport slots are, which is why I think this will be dodgy territory—not party-politically dodgy territory in particular, but for the Secretary of State and the Minister over the next four or five years, whoever they are.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those points. I enjoyed his Shakespearean reference, and I understand it entirely. This is a rather tricky part of the Bill and it took a while for us all to get our heads around it, particularly where the statutory instruments fit in, earlier in the year. He raises a number of points, and it is important to distinguish between what we are dealing with here and the wider policy aspect.
The issue of which airline has which slot is dealt with by Airport Coordination Ltd, independently of Government. The hon. Gentleman refers to a carrier being perceived to have not acted in the national interest. The Government do not involve themselves in that; it is dealt with by ACL. The wider future policy aspect is another matter, which I will come to in due course. However, he refers to grandfather rights, which I will deal with at this stage.
Obviously, we recognise that we have the ability to change the policy now that we have left the European Union’s transition period, and we will look at future slots policy in due course. Clearly, any further amendment of policy will require significant consultation and engagement with industry, and will require a good long look at what the ongoing policy will be. We are dealing here with the extraordinary times in which we live, in order to cope with the suppressed demand. There are slightly different imperatives between what we are dealing with today and what the hon. Gentleman is pressing me to look at. It is more a question of where and how we look at it. I suggest that it is not appropriate to look at that issue here.
The hon. Gentleman asks me if the date can be brought forward. The date is there because that is the date of the expected demand recovery that I referred to in my opening remarks. It means that, regrettably, we are not expecting demand to recover to 2019 levels until around 2023, or roughly that time. That means that the date in the Bill is what is required to enable that power to exist, should we require it. That date is in there because of the time taken to recover. I will add two points. First, any such decision has to be taken on the basis of data and market conditions at the time. I hope that is a reassuring factor for hon. Members. Secondly, this is a power and not an obligation. If the Secretary of State looked at that data and decided that the power was required, it would be open to him or her to exercise that power. The fact that the power is there does not mean that it has to be used. That is the reason it is there. As for conferring an unfair advantage, the power gives the opportunity for conditions to be attached. There is greater flexibility with regards to the wider policy perspective in the Bill than at present. We would have to go further into primary legislation after the usual process if we wanted to do anything further. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that we have done what we can at this time and some reassurance as to the reason for the timescale.
Mike Kane
I am grateful to the Minister for his considered explanation. I hope that, in the cross-party nature of getting this right, he will commit to keeping an open mind about ensuring that new operators coming into the market will not be competitively disadvantaged by the clause. I want to work with him on that over the next few years to make sure that that is not the case and that we reactivate our aviation industry from this pandemic as soon as we possibly can.
Robert Courts
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comment and the constructive nature of that engagement. I am committed to working with him to ensure that we get future aviation policy right.
The Chair
The question is that clause 8—[Hon. Members: “Clause 12.”] Am I on the wrong page? Clause 12? Good grief. There you go; I think that is early-stage senility on my behalf. I apologise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We are going through the Bill very quickly. Do we want to crack on? Would you like to carry on, colleagues, because you are doing so well, or do you want to go and have a cup of tea and come back on Thursday? I am sure you do not want to come back on Thursday. Crack on? [Hon. Members: “Crack on.”] Mr Tarry is keen to crack on. We are at clause 13 now, are we not? I momentarily left the road and ended up in a ditch.
Clause 13
Powers of police officers and prison authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 2.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 13 introduces schedule 8 to the Bill. This makes provision about general powers of police officers in relation to offences involving the use of unmanned aircraft and also amends sections 93 and 94 of the Police Act 1997. Without this clause, schedule 8 would not form part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 provides the police, the civil nuclear constabulary, and custodial institutions with the powers they need to protect the public from the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft. Schedule 8 contains powers for a police constable: first, the power to require a person to ground an unmanned aircraft if they have reasonable grounds for believing that person to be controlling it and if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that it has been, is or is likely to be, used in the commission of an offence; secondly, the power to stop and search persons or vehicles where the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting they will find an unmanned aircraft, and that it is or has been involved in the commission of certain offences under the Air Navigation Order 2016 or a relevant prison offence, such as assisting a prisoner to escape or conveying illicit articles into or out of a prison; and also, the power to enter and search premises under warrant.
Schedule 8 also amends section 93 of the Police Act 1997 so that counter-unmanned aircraft technology, which involves interference with property or wireless telegraphy, can be authorised in relation to certain offences involving unmanned aircraft. The Police Act 1997 is also amended so that the CNC and specified officers and staff in custodial institutions such as prisons may authorise this technology in relation to certain offences involving unmanned aircraft. Such unlawful use of unmanned aircraft can pose safety and national security risks, particularly around critical national infrastructure and prisons. For example, serious and organised crime groups currently use unmanned aircraft to deliver contraband into prisons, which threatens safety, destabilises prisons and undermines the efforts of hard-working staff and prison officers in delivering effective rehabilitative regimes.
It is therefore essential that custodial institutions are able to disrupt the supply of contraband by criminal gangs using unmanned aircraft and to maintain the security and the safety of prisons and their staff. Similarly, civil nuclear sites, which include some of the UK’s most sensitive assets, must be protected from unlawful unmanned aircraft use. The powers in the schedule enable the CNC to respond more effectively to unmanned aircraft incidents at civil nuclear sites. Stop-and-search powers and powers of entry and search under warrant are necessary for the police to be able to investigate offences effectively.
Take a scenario in which an unmanned aircraft is being flown in the flight restriction zone of a protected aerodrome. The police arriving at the scene suspect that they have identified the individual who was the remote pilot. The constable suspects the remote pilot has breached article 94A of the ANO 2016—the navigation order—by flying at or near the aerodrome without permission. However, the remote pilot has already ceased flying and put the unmanned aircraft in their car. Currently, the police have no powers to search the car for the unmanned aircraft, so no action can be taken. The powers in the Bill would permit the vehicle to be searched in such circumstances. Without the schedule, the ability of police, prison officers and the CNC to protect the public and our critical national infrastructure and prisons from the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft would be limited.
Briefly, Government amendment 2 to schedule 8 is a simple amendment to correct an omission in the Bill. Paragraph 5 of schedule 8 sets out the meaning of a “relevant unmanned aircraft offence”. As currently drafted, the offences in the Air Navigation Order 2016 included in the definition are summary only offences. In relation to Scotland, the definition should also include offences in the ANO 2016, which are triable either way or on indictment. Such offences were included in the definition of “relevant offences” in the Bill as introduced in the other place in January 2020. They were inadvertently omitted from the Government’s amendments tabled on Report in the other place, when the provisions setting out the definitions that apply in relation to the power to enter and search under warrant, and the supplementary power to retain evidence seized, were restructured.
If the amendment is not accepted, there would be no power for a justice of the peace, a summary sheriff or a sheriff in Scotland to issue to a constable a warrant to enter and search premises in relation to offences in the ANO that relate to unmanned aircraft and that can be tried under indictment. Nor would the supplementary power for a constable to retain items seized using powers in schedule 8 for forensic examination, investigation or as evidence at a trial apply in relation to such offences. The policy intention behind the Bill remains unchanged, and the amendment would not add to any offences or powers that were not already in the Bill as it was introduced in January 2020.
Mike Kane
The rapid deployment of drone technology offers great benefits for society, but as the Minister points out, it can also pose great threats. Clause 13, which deals with the powers of police officers and prison officers, is important. When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Prime Minister in 2018, Gatwick was brought to a complete halt by the use of drones, and we did not have the powers to stop it. The Opposition are supportive of the clause. The Minister and I cover the Maritime and Coastguard Authority, and the potential of drones in search-and-rescue operations—particularly some of the technology that great British manufacturers such as Airbus are developing to help with rescue operations on land and at sea—in the years ahead is really exciting.
We support the additional powers. We agree with the British Airline Pilots Association and others that the powers are proportionate to the threat that unmanned aerial vehicles pose. There is a concern that the deterrents might not be a factor if the police are not sufficiently resourced for the powers, and I have some questions for the Minister. Do the police have the capability to bring down drones? We want to be tough on drones and tough on the causes of drones in the wrong places. Do the police have the resources to detect misuse and breaches of protected airspace? A final worry is whether this legislation will keep up to date with the rapidly changing use of unmanned vehicles in the UK.
Robert Courts
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those points. I entirely agree that there are exciting possibilities in unmanned air vehicles. During the pandemic, we have seen trials of deliveries of essential supplies, for example, and we can look forward to seeing more of that sort of thing. He is right that this country has a good industrial base, so there are some real opportunities for the country as an industrial asset,. In addition, the loiter capabilities of drones in particular give us great advantages in search and rescue and intelligence gathering. We have a number of assets to look forward to, but we must guard against their misuse.
The hon. Gentleman raised three points and I will try to allay his concerns. The first point is on the ability to bring down drones. There has been wide consultation with the police and their position is that they already possess that power, although there is an operational question over how and whether it should be used, for fairly obvious reasons relating to kinetic effects. The police have been involved in every stage and the Bill has been brought forward with their co-operation. That power exists elsewhere; the question is not whether it needs to be in the Bill but whether it should be used, as that has other operational ramifications.
On resources, the police have been involved and consulted at all stages, as I said. I am confident that they have the resource needed. Regarding flexibility and rapidity, many of the substantive rules required in the future will take place under the air navigation orders, which are statutory instruments. The Bill enables changes to the regulatory and legal landscape as technology advances. The hon. Gentleman is right that this is a breathtakingly fast-evolving area of technology. While that presents opportunities, we must ensure that we do not need to bring forward legislation such as this regularly. This Bill, because of the way it is structured and the powers it gives, enables us to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8
Unmanned aircraft: powers of police officers and prison authorities
Amendment made: 2, in schedule 8, page 68, line 29, at end insert—
“(iv) an offence under the law of Scotland which arises under any other provision of the ANO 2016 and relates to unmanned aircraft, except an offence which is triable only summarily;”—(Robert Courts.)
This amends the definition of “relevant unmanned aircraft offence” to catch Scottish offences under the Air Navigation Order 2016 relating to unmanned aircraft — except any triable only summarily. These offences were caught by Schedule 8 on introduction but were inadvertently omitted when Schedule 8 was amended in the Lords.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14
Powers of police officers relating to ANO 2016
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 14 introduces schedule 9, which makes provision about powers of police officers relating to requirements in the ANO of 2016. The powers in the schedule will enable the police to enforce more effectively requirements of the risk-based framework for unmanned aircraft operations, including in relation to the competency of remote pilots and registration of unmanned aircraft system operators.
It is important to be distinct about the two different concepts, as well as relevant consent and exemptions required for higher risk flights, including flights at or near protected aerodromes. This includes the power to require a remote pilot of an unmanned aircraft to provide evidence that they have met any applicable competency requirement in the ANO 2016 for their flight and information as to the identity of the unmanned aircraft system operator of the unmanned aircraft. It also includes the power to require a UAS operator to provide evidence of registration and information as to the identity of the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft, and to provide evidence that they have the relevant consent where needed to be able to carry out a flight lawfully. A relevant consent includes an operation authorisation issued by the CAA, or a permission for a flight over or near a protected aerodrome. There is also a power to inspect an unmanned aircraft in order to establish whether the other powers I have just described are exercisable. If the remote pilot or the unmanned aircraft system operator does not have the documentation, information or evidence with them when the constable requests it, they must be able to provide it to the police station instead within seven days, or as soon as is reasonably practicable, similar to existing procedures for driving licences.
Schedule 9 makes it an offence to knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information when purporting to comply with a requirement that has been imposed on a person using one of the powers in the schedule. To be able to establish whether an offence under the ANO 2016 has been committed, the police need the powers conferred on them by the schedule. This in turn will enable them to deal more effectively with offences that have been committed, as well as deterring the commission of further offences. Without clause 14, schedule 9 and the powers it contains would not form part of the Bill, so the police would not be given the powers they need to effectively tackle the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft where this involves the breach of provisions of the Air Navigation Order 2016.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 15
Fixed penalties for certain offences relating to unmanned aircraft
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
Clause 15 introduces schedule 10 and is about provision for fixed penalties. Schedule 10 enables the police to issue a fixed penalty notice for a fixed penalty offence where they believe that the offender did not cause or intend to cause various types of harm or damage when committing the offence. It is important to note that if the preconditions for the exercise of this power are met, the constable has the option to issue a fixed penalty notice as opposed to pursuing a prosecution through the courts. They can only do so when an offender is aged 18 or over. The schedule also gives the Secretary of State powers to prescribe in regulations the offences in relation to which fixed penalty notices may be issued and the amounts of the fixed penalties.
Prescribing the offences and the amounts in regulations will enable this legislation to keep pace with an area of technology that is rapidly evolving, as the Government will be able to prescribe new offences involving unmanned aircraft as they are created. The schedule also sets out the definition of a fixed penalty notice, the information that must be included in it and the procedure for paying it. A person given a fixed penalty notice will have 21 days to pay it before they are convicted of the offence.
The schedule also sets out when registration documents in relation to a fixed penalty notice may be issued and the procedure for doing so in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as requirements as to the information a registration document must contain. Such documents are necessary when a fixed penalty notice is not paid within the 21-day timeframe and has not been appealed. These provisions provide an immediate and proportionate deterrent to committing certain offences, reducing the burden on the courts and police, because a person who is given a fixed penalty notice and pays it within the required timeframe will not be subject to the costs that are incurred when a person is prosecuted through the courts.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 16
Amendment and enforcement regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Robert Courts
The clause introduces schedule 11, which contains powers to ensure that any new offences related to unmanned aircraft, including those created via an air navigation order or in relation to particular EU-derived legislation on unmanned aircraft, can be enforced using the police powers in the Bill. The aim of the schedule is essentially to future-proof as much as possible the enforcement of legislative requirements relating to unmanned aircraft. It contains provisions that will enable the police powers in the Bill to be used to enforce new offences relating to unmanned aircraft in future.
Schedule 11 contains powers that allow for amendments to be made in subordinate legislation to schedule 8, clause 14 and schedule 9 once the Bill becomes an Act in the light of changes in relevant subordinate legislation. The definition of “relevant subordinate legislation” includes the Air Navigation Order 2016, the creation of a new air navigation order, regulations made by the Secretary of State under retained law and regulations made under the power in paragraph 3 of the schedule.
Those Henry VIII powers may be relied on for three specific purposes. First, the police powers can be amended so that they can be used to enforce new offences relating to unmanned aircraft created in future relevant subordinate legislation. Secondly, paragraph 1 provides for amendments to be made to the Act to ensure the maintenance of the effect of the powers where they would otherwise cease to be effective because of provisions in relevant subordinate legislation. Thirdly, schedule 11 provides for a power to amend the Act in consequence of provisions made in any relevant subordinate legislation to confer a police power that corresponds to a power conferred by schedule 9.
Paragraph 3 provides for enforcement of particular EU-derived legislation. The schedule contains a power to create criminal offences and civil penalties so that the legislation’s requirements can be properly enforced. Without schedule 11, it would not be possible to ensure that the enforcement of offences relating to the use of unmanned aircraft remained feasible, especially in the light of new and often rapid developments in unmanned aircraft technology and its possible misuse in future, with which the related legislation has to keep pace.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. We seem to be whistling through the Bill faster than the snow is falling on the Thames.
I thank the Minister for his comments. The Opposition share many of the British Airline Pilots Association’s concerns about the catastrophic collisions that could happen if drones were used maliciously or even incautiously and far too close to airports. We would therefore like reassurance from the Minister about restrictions on drone flights, for example, if the in-built safety features such as geo-fencing, lights or the transponder were retuned or deliberately disabled. The Minister said that penalty notices applied to those aged 18 and over, but it is clear that sales of drones are often to people under 18. We know how ingenious many of our young people are in this day and age, when it is possible to plug a drone into a computer and reconfigure its parameters. Sometimes we need to think about how to ensure that we are not being outwitted by people who purchase and use those items.
I would also like reassurance about the distinct threat of unmanned aircraft pilots operating drones as swarms. That is a potentially dangerous development. The military not just in the US but in Israel have been testing that, and it would not be beyond the wit of civilians purchasing unmanned aircraft to do it. We need reassurance that the police are equipped with the technology to disable a single swarm of drones conducting a mission. We also need to satisfy the safety concerns about overseeing those multiple unmanned aircraft if they are performing different missions.
The Opposition are concerned about the Bill’s failure to recognise wake turbulence. Again, the British Airline Pilots Association has raised that matter. Wake turbulence is stipulated in law in terms of the distance between aircraft, but unmanned aircraft are not currently covered. That could be a significant safety issue for the public if a drone crashed over a populated area due to an aircraft’s wake turbulence. Those are some of the areas of concern on which we would like to hear reassurances from the Minister.
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those excellent points. They show the complexity of the challenge we face as we adapt to welcoming this new technology while ensuring that it does not pose a danger to those on the ground or in the air. For those reasons, we have constructed the Bill in the way that we have, so that it is able to adapt and flex to technology or operating practices that change in the future.
Many of the hon. Gentleman’s points will be covered by some of the definitions of the way people operate drones in the Bill—for example, their operation as swarms, or in relation to wake turbulence. I suggest that is not something that needs granularity on the face of the Bill. It is a practice that could be tackled by the police when they operate under the powers conferred by the Bill. The police have been heavily involved in the drafting and preparation stages of the Bill, and we continue to work with operational partners, not just the police, but related agencies, such as the CAA, We have been keen to ensure that the Bill not only gives the flexibility required, but is realistic to implement once it becomes law. We will obviously continue to work closely with the CAA and police to make sure they are ready to respond to changes made to offences using the powers in schedule 1.
Police training and guidance relating to unmanned aircraft and powers in the Bill are a key part of the Government’s counter-unmanned aircraft strategy, which continues in any event. Briefings and general guidance are provided to officers with more specialist advice available in the form of tactical advisers to ensure the most efficient and effective use of policing resource.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the resources available to the police. Again, I pray in aid those aspects of the legislation, because we have worked closely with the police to provide them with the guidance to ensure they have the resources that they require. I think I have covered all the hon. Gentleman’s points.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 17
Disclosures of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause authorises a disclosure of information where it does not contravene data protection legislation or parts 1 to 7 or chapter 1 of part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Part 3: interpretation
Robert Courts
This is the interpretation part of this section of the Bill. The Bill provides that ANO 2016 means the Air Navigation Order 2016, which we have referred to throughout this Committee sitting. The Bill provides that subordinate legislation means any instrument made or to be made under an Act of Parliament on or after IP—implementation period—completion day under any retained direct EU legislation. The Bill also provides that unmanned aircraft means any aircraft operating or designed to operate autonomously or to be piloted remotely without a pilot on board. Drones and model aircraft are the most commonly used types of unmanned aircraft.
Sam Tarry
It is important to raise a concern and disappointment that the Bill is two years too late. For a moment, we ought to reflect on the incident at Gatwick in December 2018, which affected 140,000 passengers and in excess of 1,000 flights, costing the airline operators tens of millions of pounds. The pace of change of technology for unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft swarms has advanced rapidly, as I have already mentioned. The Bill must ensure that the Department for Transport and the Minister continue a dialogue with the police to identify threats as early as possible so that we are not in that situation again. More specifically, we need clarification from the Minister about how the Department and the Civil Aviation Authority plan to keep up with new anti-drone technology, to provide support and licences to private operators, perhaps at aerodromes—particularly ones near critical national infrastructure such as power stations—and then to police that technology.
Furthermore, we need to ensure that the Bill enables the DFT and the police to keep up to speed with the possible future development of broad, unmanned traffic management systems, so we need to be looking ahead. During the pandemic we have seen the ubiquitous use of Amazon. I have probably recycled more cardboard boxes from my wife’s orders than I care to think of, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility that those boxes could, in the next 10 years, be delivered by drones. That is certainly something that private companies are thinking about, but will the provisions and scenarios laid down in the guidance around the Bill be able to keep pace with those developments? In fact, as a result of the rapid increase in the technology, Administrations around the world who are also looking at this issue have called for a focus on the use of drones—beyond just recreational and military use—by commercial operators.
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman’s vision for the potential future of the industry is absolutely right. There are all sorts of endless possibilities. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and I have talked already about, for example, the maritime sphere and search and rescue possibilities. There are myriad others. He is absolutely right to focus on, for example, how it is not inconceivable that the day-to-day deliveries that we currently do by land might be done by air in future.
The sponsoring and promotion of that aspect of things probably lie outside the Bill. We would probably look at other areas of Government to ensure that we make the most of those technologies. What we are concerned with in this Bill is ensuring that there is a safe regulatory environment by laying out a framework with the flexibility to innovate for the future to ensure that the regulation stays up to date, which we do primarily through air navigation orders.
In terms of the DFT being well informed as to what is required, I refer back to the detailed and ongoing engagement we have with the Civil Aviation Authority, which is a world-leading regulator in this sphere, as it is in other spheres of aviation. We also work closely with the police, and I have referred to how the Bill has been created in close consultation with the police to ensure that they have the powers they need. By continuing to engage closely with the CAA, the police and all manner of other bodies—we have referred to many others, such as BALPA—and listening to their views, we will stay on top of ensuring that we have the regulations we need so that the great vision we have discussed is realised in a safe manner. This Bill lays out the regulatory framework within which we can do that in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Colleagues, with grit, determination and focus, we are in danger of finishing this Committee stage in its entirety by 11.25 am. As long as you are all happy to progress on that basis—there seems to be a degree of happiness in the room—we will continue.
Clause 19
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause sets out which powers in the Bill are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and which are subject to the negative resolution procedure. Every effort has been made to limit the number and scope of the delegated powers in the Bill. Delegated powers have been included in the Bill only where it is not appropriate, practical or possible to make provision in the Bill itself.
In the Bill, where amendments to primary legislation relate to procedural matters, we propose that the negative resolution procedure would apply. For example, schedule 3 gives the Secretary of State powers to modify time limits for an appeal to be determined by the Competition and Markets Authority. If the time periods are no longer appropriate, or the CMA needs longer to consider an appeal, it is right that there is a mechanism to amend the timeframe.
However, it is right that some powers in the Bill that could have significant impacts should be subject to a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny and debate. For example, the power under paragraph 3 of schedule 11 makes regulations providing for the creation of criminal offences in relation to the requirements of particular EU-derived legislation on unmanned aircraft.
Some powers we propose in the Bill are made by the affirmative resolution procedure in the first instance and by the negative procedure for any amendments thereafter. For example, that would apply to paragraph 2 of schedule 10, on the power of the Secretary of State, by regulations, to prescribe offences as fixed penalty offences for the purposes of the Act. That is to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the secondary legislation before it comes into force for the first time. Using the negative procedure thereafter is considered proportionate and in line with other existing legislation, and it allows the Government to respond flexibly to changing circumstances, such as changes to inflation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
This clause states that the Act will extend to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, except for clause 12—“Airport slot allocation”—which extends to England, Wales and Scotland only. Civil aviation, aviation and transport, including airspace, are reserved matters in respect of all three devolved Administrations. Aerodromes are a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland, which is taken to include airport slot allocation. As a result, and because there are no co-ordinated airports there, and there are not expected to be any designated there during the relevant period, clause 12 has not been extended to Northern Ireland.
The powers provided in part 3 of the Bill are necessary for police and other law enforcement agencies to enforce the lawful and responsible use of unmanned aircraft. However, the powers relate to the regulation of unmanned aircraft. The legislative consent process is triggered for Scotland and Northern Ireland in relation to schedule 8 of the Bill, which provides in part 2 for the authorisation of property interference and interference with wireless telegraphy when certain offences have been committed using an unmanned aircraft.
Schedule 8 also extends the range of public authorities that may authorise such interference to include the CNC and a member of senior management in custodial institutions. The provisions confer a function on Scottish Ministers and on the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to designate certain officials in the Scottish Prison Service and in the Northern Ireland Prison Service and Youth Justice Agency as being capable of authorising counter-unmanned aircraft measures.
The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly both passed legislative consent motions in June 2020. The legislative consent motion process does not apply to Senedd Cymru because excepted functions relating to prisons are reserved.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Robert Courts
The clause sets out when each of the provisions in the Bill will come into force. Clause 7 and schedule 2, clause 13 and schedule 8, clause 14 and schedule 9, and clause 15 and schedule 10 will all come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed, only for the specific purpose of making secondary legislation.
Schedule 9 enables the police to require the production of information, documentation and evidence by UAS operators and remote pilots of unmanned aircraft. The measures require UAS operators to register their aircraft, remote pilots to have been issued their certificates of competency, and consent to have been obtained from the CAA for higher-risk flights.
Schedule 9 also enables the police to inspect an unmanned aircraft to assist in determining whether other powers conferred by the schedule are exercisable. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe other information, documentation or evidence that a UAS operator or a remote pilot must produce. This power comes into force on the day on which the Bill is passed. All other provisions in schedule 9, which are not required for the purposes of making regulations, will come into force two months after the day the Bill is passed.
Clauses 12 and 16 to 22 will also come into force on the day the Bill is passed. All other clauses come into force on the date set out in the statutory instruments to be made once the Bill has passed. The commencement dates for statutory instruments can be different depending on the purpose of the statutory instrument. That provides flexibility for the coming into force date.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Short Title
Robert Courts
Clause 22 provides that the Act may be referred to by its short title, the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, when it is cited in other legislation and documents.
The Chair
Gosh. We are cantering through this.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Gosh. Well done, everybody. I thank the Committee, the Clerk of the Committee and the transcriber of the Committee’s speeches and proceedings.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Robert Courts
I would like to thank the Clerks of the Committee and you, Sir Charles, for chairing and for dealing with the business in such an efficient and diligent manner this morning. I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East—the Opposition spokesman—and the Opposition Whip for having facilitated the efficient but detailed consideration of the Bill. It is an exciting Bill and it is necessary, as we look to the future, for not just space management but drone operations, which we have discussed today. I am grateful to everyone for their constructive engagement in Committee. I look forward to that as we move forward to Report.
The Chair
Might I say that I think I heard the Minister make a point of order? That is what I was meant to hear. That was not entirely a point of order, Minister, but it was rather brilliantly put.
Mike Kane
On a point of order, Sir Charles. The American sociologist Margaret Mead said we should never doubt that a small group of committed people could change the world, because nothing else in history ever has done. Well done to all Members today; there was thorough scrutiny of the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South and his staff for helping with the heavy lifting, and the Whips for keeping us safe. Today, democracy was seen to be done and to be in action, despite the pandemic. Sir Charles, thank you for your excellent chairing. To the Department for Transport civil servants and the Clerks of the House, my heartfelt thanks.
The Chair
Excellent. Does anyone else want to make any bogus points of order—encouraged by the Chair, might I add? In the absence of any more, the question is that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [Lords]
Monday 22nd March 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 March 2021 - (22 Mar 2021)
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—New CAA general duty: net zero aviation emissions—
‘(1) In subsection 70(2) of the Transport Act 2000, after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) to ensure the achievement of net zero aviation emissions by 2050 and a progressive and material reduction in aircraft noise impacts, in each case pursuant to guidance to be provided by the Secretary of State.”’
This new clause would amend the CAA’s duties, as set out in the Transport Act 2000, so that it is required to meet net zero emissions and reduce noise impacts.
New clause 3—Reduction of noise from military aircrafts—
‘The Secretary of State must consider in any airspace change proposal the inclusion of measures to reduce the noise pollution arising from military aviation.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consider including measures to reduce noise pollution from military aviation in any airspace change proposal.
New clause 4—Consultation on airspace change proposals—
‘(1) Where a consultation on an airspace change proposal is underway but not completed before the passing of this Act—
(a) the consultation must be stopped, and
(b) a new consultation must be started.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) includes a consultation being conducted by an airport or group of airports.
(3) The airspace change proposal that is the subject of the consultation may not be progressed until the new consultation under subsection (1)(b) has been completed.
(4) The new consultation must take account of any externalities arising from the airspace change proposal including—
(a) air pollution,
(b) noise pollution, and
(c) road traffic congestion.”
This new clause would require any consultation on an airspace change proposal underway at the time the Act is passed to be stopped, and a new consultation started. It also specifies externalities the new consultation must take account of.
New clause 5—Financial Impact Assessment on the Airspace Change Organisation Group—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must conduct an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on the costs of the Airspace Change Organisation Group (ACOG) for a period of two years, beginning with the day this Act comes into force.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the impact assessment required by subsection (1) within six months of the day this Act comes into force.
(3) The Secretary of State must include within the report required by subsection (2) a plan to manage the impacts identified within the report.’
This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to investigate and publicise the financial impact on the air industry of compliance with the Act.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 4 at end insert—
‘(e) prepare an assessment, including a financial assessment, of—
(i) any externalities arising from an airspace change proposal that has been prepared or implemented, and
(ii) the geographic distribution of these externalities.’
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to direct a person involved in an airspace change proposal to carry out an assessment of any externalities arising from the proposal.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of subsection 1(e), “externalities” include—
(a) air pollution,
(b) noise pollution, and
(c) road traffic congestion.’
This amendment is linked to Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 14, at end insert
‘modernisation of controlled airspace as part of the’.
This amendment will narrow the scope of direction by the Secretary of State to cases where a direction relates to airspace modernisation, so that enforcement orders may not be used in cases unrelated to airspace modernisation.
Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, at end insert
‘modernisation of controlled airspace as part of the’.
This amendment will narrow the scope of direction by the Secretary of State to cases where a direction related to airspace modernisation, so that enforcement orders may not be used in cases unrelated to airspace modernisation.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 34, at end insert—
‘(9) When the airspace change proposal relates to airspace used by military aircraft, the Secretary of State for Defence must require the cooperation of Military Air Traffic Control with the CAA to ensure the airspace change proposal incorporates measures to reduce military aircraft—
(a) noise; and
(b) pollution.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Defence to reduce noise and pollution from military aircrafts where an airspace change proposal relates to airspace used by military aircrafts.
Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 4, line 29, at end insert—
‘(6) The CAA must publish emissions, noise and health impact information associated with the airspace change proposal as part of their consultation process.’
This amendment would establish a transparency duty on the CAA to publish emissions, noise and health impact information.
John McDonnell
I wish to speak to new clauses 1 and 2 and amendment 1, standing in my name. I will seek to be as brief as possible, Mr Deputy Speaker; with your permission, I will aim to speak for no more than 10 minutes. Over the years, I have tried to use every legislative or policy debate opportunity to place the issues of noise and emissions at the heart of every discussion in this House on the future of aviation policy. These amendments seek once again to do just that.
I think I am the only Member of the Commons who can claim to have attended every major planning public inquiry and court case relating to the expansion of Heathrow airport over the last nearly 50 years. Over the years, I have attended as an interested local resident, then as the local Greater London Council councillor, then as the Member of Parliament for the Heathrow area. In addition to the deeply felt worries of local residents about the demolition of their homes and villages, two issues have been the consistent basis of challenge in these inquiries and legal contests. They are the impact of noise, and the impact of emissions on the community in the immediate area, as well as across large areas of London and now more widely.
At the terminal 4 inquiry, there was general support for limited expansion of the airport, as long as there were conditions attached to any permission to expand in relation to noise. By the time of the terminal 5 inquiry, a great deal of that support had turned to opposition, as the noise agreements had proved so ineffective in guaranteeing people’s quiet enjoyment of their homes, gardens and open spaces. By that time, much more evidence had emerged about the effect of noise on health, and about air pollution as the cause of severe respiratory conditions, vascular problems and cancers. It was because of the environmental impact that the planning inspector recommended that there be no further expansion at Heathrow after terminal 5. Heathrow Airport wrote to me and my constituents saying that if it was granted terminal 5, it would not need or seek a third runway. Of course that was a lie, and within six months it was publicly lobbying for a third runway.
Subsequently, we have also grown aware of the role that emissions play in climate change. I find it hard to comprehend why, despite our facing the existential threat of a climate emergency; despite knowing that 40,000 people a year die from air pollution; and despite all that we now know about the health implications of noise and sleep impairment, consideration is still being given in Government to airport expansion. We need to ensure that all the aviation legislation we consider addresses the critical issues of noise and emissions, which is what these new clauses and amendments seek to do.
I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me explaining the Government’s attitude to my amendments. On a positive note, I see from this correspondence that although the Minister does not support my new clauses or amendments, he does not disagree with the intention behind them. I welcome his commitment to ensuring that the issues raised by them are addressed in any future review of air navigation guidance and noise policy.
Let me briefly run through the new clauses and amendments, and some questions in response to the Minister’s position. New clause 1 would place a statutory duty on the Civil Aviation Authority to reduce, minimise or mitigate significant adverse noise impacts of aviation. The Minister has argued in correspondence that applying a new general duty to all the CAA’s functions is not desirable because safety must remain the primary duty in the context of section 70(1) of the Transport Act 2000. The intention of the new clause is not to reduce safety as a priority, but rather to raise noise and emissions reductions up the priority order. It should be the duty of all public bodies to ensure that we are safe from noise, air pollution and climate change.
The Minister states that the CAA must take account of any guidance on environmental objectives given to it by the Secretary of State, and that is true. However, the effect of the legislation is to subordinate all the environmental matters to section 70(2)(a) and the duty
“to secure the most efficient use of airspace consistent with the safe operation of aircraft and the expeditious flow of air traffic”.
Noise and emissions are always reduced to being second-class citizens in this ranking order.
The Secretary of State has powers under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to limit numbers and types of craft active during the night period at Heathrow and the other airports designated under the Act, so one question that needs to be addressed now is whether this section should be amended to include limits on numbers and types of aircraft during the day as well.
The Minister referred in correspondence with me to the consultation on noise caps in the aviation strategy Green Paper, and said that noise reduction would be looked at again as we come through the pandemic. I welcome that, but the Green Paper applied to all airports other than Heathrow, and so does not provide communities under Heathrow flight paths with any certainty for the future. I would welcome it if the Minister considered amending the aviation national policy statement to ensure that a noise cap was considered in relation to Heathrow and potential expansion there.
The Minister has stated that noise restrictions should be placed on airports, and not, as in new clause 1, on the airspace around the airport. He argues that the latter would—I quote—“create a significant burden on the airspace change process and add great complexity to the day-to-day management of airspace.” That response unfortunately highlights my concern that enhancing capacity is prioritised over reducing the harm to overflown communities and the environment. In my view, airspace and airport capacity should be increased only subject to strict noise and emission reduction conditions. That is a role that the CAA should have a hand in playing. Giving permission to expand capacity on the basis of asserted benefits that cannot be translated into conditions, and whose delivery the regulator cannot monitor and enforce, is not consistent with the Government’s stated policy on noise or climate change.
New clause 2 would amend the CAA’s duties, as set out in the Transport Act 2000, to require it to achieve net zero emissions and reduce noise impacts. The Minister has asserted that the Government cannot support this amendment because the word “ensure” would make it difficult for the Civil Aviation Authority to accept any proposal that did not reduce emissions and aircraft noise, regardless of the overall benefits of the proposal. However, section 70(2) of the 2000 Act is intended to list all the factors that the Civil Aviation Authority must consider. None is supposed to have a greater weight than the others, and a variety of language is used for the different objectives—everything from “secure” to “satisfy” and “take account of”. Some hierarchy of responsibility seems to be emerging in the discussions about the role of the Civil Aviation Authority and what should be taken into account. I do not see why “ensure” would be any more problematic than, for example, “secure”. We need clarity about the role that the CAA can play in ensuring that we can move towards net zero emissions, because it plays an important role in tackling climate change by developing an environmental aviation strategy.
Amendment 1 would place a transparency duty on the Civil Aviation Authority to publish emissions, noise and health impact information. The Minister has said that assessments covering noise, health, local air quality and greenhouse gas impacts must be submitted by proposers along with any formal airspace change proposal, and he argues that they are subsequently published on the CAA website. My amendment would simply require this information to be published more clearly, alongside the proposed changes. That would help deepen community understanding of the proposals and the alternative options.
Last week, the Government announced kickstart funding for the airspace modernisation strategy. The Minister must ensure that local communities have a genuine voice in this process. It is vital that the redesign of airspace delivers mutually balanced outcomes for the industry and local communities alike. The Government should commit to publishing assessments of the noise and health impacts of concentrated flightpaths before any final strategy is signed off.
I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he has responded to my amendments to the Bill in correspondence. He offered a meeting, which unfortunately, due to last-minute business in the House to which I was committed, did not take place. However, the issues we are addressing today go well beyond this legislation, so I hope he will agree to meet me and a few colleagues to take the discussion further, as this is so important to communities living close to airports—and, given the concerns we all have about climate change, all our constituents.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who speaks with great authority on this particular topic. I am also grateful, as he was, to the Minister for his kind consideration of the issues I have raised about the Bill as it has proceeded to this point.
I would like to speak to my amendments: new clause 4, which would seek to halt, or essentially cancel, and then start new consultations on airspace changes that are currently under way; and amendments 3 and 4, which speak to the requirement for the Minister and the reviews he proposes to take into account a financial assessment, and within that particularly to take account of the externalities comprising part of that financial assessment. With your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to talk through each of those.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken or will speak on Report today, those who spoke on Second Reading or in Committee, as well as Members in the other place, for their work on the Bill. I remain certain of the requirement for this legislation. The Minister and I have a shared ambition for airspace modernisation in the United Kingdom. As I have said before, the country has been managing its airspace with analogue technology from the previous century, with piecemeal updates as demand has grown—an analogue system in a digital age. The Bill is vital to hasten and co-ordinate an ambitious airspace change programme fit for the 21st century.
Part 2, which involves the regulation of air traffic control services, is very welcome. I am pleased that the Bill is addressing regulation now; all hon. Members present agree that the changes will enable the Civil Aviation Authority to maintain the UK’s excellent flying safety record and continue to be a world-class leader in aviation safety. The Minister and I have discussed airport slots ad nauseam, including on Second Reading and in Committee. Labour has supported the Government on recent statutory instruments to extend the temporary waiver on slot regulations owing to the covid-19 pandemic. I am content that clause 12 will provide the Government with the tools to tackle airport slot allocation issues that arise from the pandemic.
Part 3, which provides further police powers over the use of unmanned aircraft, is long overdue; I am grateful that tonight we are closer to bringing those powers into effect. As technology has moved on, drones have become more and more common, and it was only a matter of time before an incident such as the one at Gatwick airport in 2018 that disrupted air traffic. I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the concerns raised in Committee and am content to support this part of the Bill today.
It would, however, be remiss to speak on this Bill tonight and not mention the current situation in which the aviation sector finds itself. The covid-19 pandemic has devastated the industry. The UK was previously the third largest aviation market in the world, but now we are not so sure. The Government, through neglect and their belief that the markets would be able to support this huge section of our national economy, have hamstrung the entire sector.
Twelve months ago we were led to believe that the Treasury would be offering a bespoke support package for airlines, aerospace, airports and ground-handlers and other support services; a year later no specific aviation deal has emerged. It is vital that when the global travel taskforce reports to the Prime Minister on 12 April the Department for Transport and colleagues across Government roll out a robust and comprehensive plan to enable aviation to lift off into the skies again. This summer will be make or break for the sector, and the ambition presented by this Bill will be for nothing if we cannot maintain our advantage on the world stage with one of our leading industries after the pandemic draws to a close.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I hope you noticed that I was very good to you there, Mr Kane, by not interrupting you even though you went a bit wider than you should have.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the shadow Minister the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). This is one of those events where we sit down and think, “This is Parliament at its best.” I served on the Bill Committee, where we rattled through our work—at interceptor pace is the best way to describe it, using an aerospace metaphor.
As the shadow Minister said, this modernisation of our aerospace is long overdue; it is what we need to do to keep our skies open. We need to find a way for co-existence between those interceptors—the Typhoons that fly through our sky and keep us safe— passenger jets and unmanned aircraft, because the sky is becoming an increasingly busy space. I talk about co-existing from a position of fairly strong expertise being the MP for Milton Keynes North, because of course we co-exist with our robots—our delivery robots that wander around delivering groceries and are part of everyday life. Drones are essentially sky robots, and we need to find a way of co-existing. This is a hybrid Parliament, and we now have hybrid skies and hybrid airspace. So if we co-exist with our sky robot friends, we need to find a way of making judgment day a matter for the regulators, not the robots.
Our aerospace is our gateway to the world. Let me deal specifically with the points raised in the Bill Committee and here tonight. This modernisation will make us more efficient. It will make our airspace more efficient, reduce noise, reduce pollution, reduce congestion, and, of course, as others have said eloquently, it will reduce the impact on the communities over which the airspace lies.
I support Government on this Bill. The UK is and will remain a global leader in aerospace, and in fact global MK and global Britain will be open for business because our skies will be open for business.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt). Sadly, my speech will not have any references to Skynet or “Terminator 2”, but I do rise virtually to speak to amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 5 in my name and on behalf of the Scottish National party.
It is fair to say that I have been rather a vocal critic of this Government’s action—or inaction—in relation to the aviation industry. For the industry that has been hardest hit by the pandemic not to merit a single mention in the Chancellor’s Budget speech is quite something. While I will continue to press the Minister and his colleagues on other issues relating to the sector, including support and equal access for UK aviation operators to EU markets, as they do to ours, I thank the Minister for responding to my calls on behalf of the sector to help fund the immediate future of the airspace modernisation strategy.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The benefits and disbenefits of the proximity to Heathrow airport are two sides of the same coin for my constituency. The issues of air space management and, crucially, noise pollution are of great importance, but this Government —and, I have to say, most previous Governments—have been slow and not done enough. I do not want airspace modernisation being used as an excuse to enable yet more flights into Heathrow, resulting in more hours and days with continuous noise, and yet more traffic congestion and air pollution.
The Civil Aviation Authority is the key statutory authority governing aviation, but it has few powers to control noise, or, for that matter, any other environmental objectives such as the climate crisis and the impact of emissions, all of which are subsumed beneath the objective of safety. I have worked for many years—long before I was elected to this place—with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I support his amendment to the Bill to include in the CAA’s remit a duty
“to reduce, minimise or mitigate…noise”.
I regret that it has not been accepted by the Government.
There is a growing body of evidence—referred to in the recent report by the Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise—which cites the health and other impacts of aviation noise, from hypertension to cognitive impairment in children. To clarify, in normal times 70% of flights arriving at Heathrow come over my constituency. They are locked into a gradually descending final arrival path. Roughly two thirds of my constituents live within the area of significant noise disturbance, and the other third would do if runway three were to go ahead, or, for that matter, if the CAA approved additional flights by allowing planes to join the final approach late, from the north or south.
In the last 12 months, my constituents and I have noticed a difference to our daily lives, with a 90% cut in arrival flights over our homes. We know that for Heathrow to go back to anything like normal operation, the current noise-free days cannot last, but when it comes to airspace changes, communities affected by aircraft noise should at least be treated with respect, be consulted and have their views treated seriously.
The pandemic has exposed not only how much our noise environment is dominated by aircraft noise, but also how much our local economy has been dependent on the airport. Unemployment in communities around Heathrow has risen by 150% on average, and that is while many people are still furloughed and not yet adding to the unemployment figures. This shows the urgent need for support for our aviation communities, as previous speakers have mentioned. We have been promised an aviation recovery strategy for nine months, but all we have had is silence; yet, aviation is the sector that will take the longest to recover.
To conclude, whether it is on noise or aviation jobs, this Government do not seem willing to listen and act to support airport communities.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to be here, speaking in the Chamber remotely, at the Report stage of this very important Bill, which the Liberal Democrats have supported all the way through. The provisions it contains are long overdue, particularly those on airspace modernisation.
We welcome the opportunity for the Government to take powers to improve the use of airspace for the benefit, yes, of the aviation industry, but also for the communities who live around airports, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) just spelled out in her excellent speech. I, too, represent one of those communities —Richmond Park. We have long been plagued by excessive noise from aircraft. There has been some welcome respite during the pandemic and the lockdown, but my constituents are fearful of what may happen in the future, especially if the Government go ahead with their stated plans to allow expansion at Heathrow. I impress on them that they have the opportunity to put my constituents’ fears at rest on that matter.
We support the airspace modernisation plans in the Bill. However, I reiterate what the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said: if not through this Bill, then at some time in the future, the CAA ought to be given the power to consider the impact of noise on local communities when designating airspace. It is such an important issue because of the impact that it has on mental health, on physical health, on people’s ability to sleep and on people’s ability to go about their daily lives. That is highlighted to me so often by my constituents. Again, it was discussed very eloquently by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth.
I also support what the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said about the impact that climate change is having and the need to give powers in that regard to the CAA. That is a really important point. The Government are not yet being clear about how they expect the aviation industry to contribute to their drive towards net zero. It is absolutely essential that we get more clarity on how that will be achieved. Aviation obviously has an important role to play in our economy. It has had an exceptionally tough year, and we know from announcements made only today that the future of aviation continues to be very unsettled. We look forward to more direction from the Government about how they plan to build back better in aviation.
The Liberal Democrats support this Bill and will continue to support it through its remaining stages.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will see if we are any luckier with Jim Shannon this time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can hear my dulcet tones all the way from Northern Ireland. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue.
Of particular interest to me is new clause 12, which seeks to provide temporary powers to amend the retained EU law on airport slot allocation due to the coronavirus pandemic. The 80:20 or “use it or lose it” rule is used to monitor compliance and determine whether airlines can retain their legacy slots. The European Commission has waived the rule for the summer and winter seasons in 2021 because of the coronavirus pandemic—exceptional times, without a doubt. I absolutely support the Government in their move to make a similar waiver through the use of these temporary powers. Our airline industry is in dire need of support and help—I know the Minister has been very responsive to that and I thank him for it—not only in the short term but in the long term. We need to look at how we can come alongside the industry to work with it.
Particularly for Northern Ireland, it is essential that our routes are protected—our domestic routes, that is, but we have some hopes for the future that we may even have some international routes, which is something we are encouraged by. We are also encouraged by the Government’s commitment on air passenger duty, and we will see how that works for the benefit of all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Connectivity is vital and must be protected at all costs for the foreseeable future.
I have spoken at length regarding drones, particularly their use in prisons. However, I also recognise the benefit of drones used in the right way. The Government have put in place legislation to prevent unmanned aircraft being able to fly near airports, and technology is in place to neutralise any unmanned aircraft that could breach the quarantine distance around airports, so there are many good things to welcome. Unmanned aircraft must be regulated for many reasons, none being more important than security. I am very pleased that clauses 13 to 18, together with schedules 8 to 11, will give powers to police the misuse of unmanned aircraft. These include, first, the power to ground unmanned aircraft; secondly, the power to stop and search people and vehicles; and thirdly, the power to obtain a warrant to search property. There will be further provision for fixed penalties for certain offences relating to unmanned aircraft. I welcome this further tightening of the law. It is also welcome that those who are using a drone for a purpose that is legal and honourable will not have any issue with these powers or feel threatened in any way at all. However, can the Minister confirm that all necessary discussions have taken place with all regions in the United Kingdom, particularly Northern Ireland?
In this age of technical wonder, it is imperative that we make the best of advances such as drone technology and heat signatures to find lost animals, for example. As someone who lives in the countryside, I know that many of my farming friends, colleagues, partners and neighbours wish to see that. We must also regulate to prevent misuse, and the Bill sets that balance. That is why I support the Government’s intentions and commitment, which I believe are honourable, honest and true.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I thank all Members for their contributions and the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Bill throughout and with the new clauses and amendments before the House. I will address each of the provisions.
New clause 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and supported by the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), seeks to ensure that the Civil Aviation Authority prioritises noise when considering airspace changes by making it a primary duty. The Government recognise the impact that aviation noise has on communities that are overflown, including those in the right hon. Member’s constituency, which may also be impacted when aircraft are on the ground. The Government have in place regulations and policies to mitigate and reduce aircraft noise but cannot, I am afraid, support the new clause.
Subsection (1) of the new clause puts a primary duty on the CAA to
“reduce, minimise or mitigate significant adverse noise impacts of aviation.”
The CAA’s duties include regulation of civil aviation safety, aviation security functions, licensing of airlines and more. Those are in addition to its duties around the use of UK airspace, to which the Bill is more closely linked. Specifically on its duties around air navigation functions, section 70(1) of the Transport Act 2000 states that safety is “to have priority” over the CAA’s other functions. I would like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and other Members that, in carrying out those air navigation functions, the CAA must take into account guidance on environmental objectives given to it by the Secretary of State. That guidance currently takes the form of the “Air Navigation Guidance 2017”. Altitude-based priorities are clear that the environmental priority in airspace below 7,000 feet is to minimise
“the impact of aviation noise in a manner consistent with the government’s overall policy on aviation noise”.
For the reason that safety must remain the primary duty of the CAA in its air navigation functions, the Government cannot accept subsection (1).
Subsection (2) of new clause 1 seeks to constrain the use of airspace with regard to number and type of aircraft. The frequency of overflight and the type of aircraft are clearly among the most important contributing factors to the noise experienced by communities. There is a wide variety of powers available to Government and airports to reduce noise at airports, including section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which the Government use to limit numbers and types of aircraft during the night period at Heathrow. I should add that, in the 2018 aviation strategy Green Paper, the Government consulted on a proposal to routinely set noise caps. We expect to look once again at these important issues and will consider whether current policy on noise reduction needs to be strengthened. The Government believe that it is right that any restrictions on noise should be imposed on the airport itself, and that it is not appropriate or practical to restrict the use of airspace around an airport for these purposes, because to do so would add great complexity to the day-to-day management of airspace.
New clause 2 seeks to ensure that the Government meet their target of net zero emissions by 2050 and that aircraft noise is mitigated, even reduced. I am sure the House will agree that those are noble objectives. The Government will consult over the coming months on a net zero aviation strategy, setting out the steps to reach net zero aviation emissions by 2050. However, we are unable to support the new clause because it would have some unintended consequences, which I will briefly explain.
In most airspace change proposals, there is a complex balance of trade-offs between the needs of airspace users, the airports, the military and the environment—it is the co-existence that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) addressed in his speech and that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Those trade-offs can be further complicated by the competing needs of different types of airspace user, or, in the case of the environment, the desire to reduce emissions or aircraft noise at the expense of the other. It is far from easy for an airspace change proposal to meet everyone’s wishes, and the CAA has to make the best decision that it can based on the available evidence.
Under section 70 of the Transport Act 2000, the CAA is required to exercise its air navigation functions in a manner that it considers best calculated to achieve a number of objectives, which already include a requirement for the CAA to take into account the environmental objectives in guidance given by the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman’s new clause 2 were accepted, the requirement “to ensure” would make it very difficult for the CAA to accept any proposal that did not reduce emissions and aircraft noise, regardless of the overall benefits of the proposal or the other conditions under section 70(2). That would act as a significant constraint on the Government’s airspace modernisation programme, and therefore the Government are unable to accept or support this new clause.
Amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, is motivated by a desire to ensure that communities receive clarity on the emissions, health and noise impact of any airspace change process, and of course I agree that it is vital for communities to have clarity and to understand the implications of how any airspace change might impact them.
I wish to assure the House that the Department’s air navigation guidance to the CAA already requires airspace change sponsors to consider the emission, health and noise impacts of their proposal and to consult with communities on its impacts. The Government consider that there is therefore no need for this amendment, as mechanisms already exist to ensure that communities are suitably informed of the potential impact of airspace change proposals.
I turn to new clause 4, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). He rightly wishes to reflect the recent airspace change experience of constituents in places such as Potton, Sandy and Biggleswade, as well as others living in nearby constituency areas. He has spoken to me about them, and he has spoken powerfully again about them tonight. I appreciate that communities, wherever they live, are always going to be rightly concerned about any airspace change proposal that may affect them. I hope that he will be reassured by the fact that “Air Navigation Guidance 2017” was produced in response to many concerns that such communities have raised. That is embedded in the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP1616 process for airspace change—a new process that is only just beginning to have effect. I assure my hon. Friend that the air navigation guidance and CAP1616 require the sponsor to actively engage and consult with key stakeholders, including communities, on their proposals.
I am mindful that my hon. Friend’s new clause would require sponsors to undertake a road traffic congestion assessment in their proposal. That is important, but the Government are not convinced that it is appropriate for a consultation on airspace change proposals to include road traffic congestion.
I am aware of a number of points that my hon. Friend has made with regard to Luton and its development consent order. I hope that he will understand that, as the final decision on that would rest with the Secretary of State for Transport, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it at this stage. I hope that the House and my hon. Friend will agree that the long-established planning system is the right place for communities to have their say on such matters. As we consider aviation policy in the future, I will remember, of course, all the points that he has made.
I turn briefly to my hon. Friend’s amendments 3 and 4, which have the laudable intention of ensuring that air pollution and noise impacts of any airspace change proposal are identified and monetised. He will, I am sure, be relieved to hear that the Department for Transport’s transport analysis guidance assessment tool includes the need to monetise many of those aspects, as the specific location is already an important requirement under the CAP1616 process that I have referred to already.
I am grateful that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has indicated that he does not intend to press new clause 5 to a vote, but given that he had the courtesy to table it, I shall deal with it briefly. The Airspace Change Organisation Group is a ring-fenced team that sits within NATS, so is funded by the NATS charging scheme and would not be affected by the costs of airspace change in the way that I anticipate the hon. Gentleman fears.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North also tabled amendments 5 and 6, which would narrow the powers in the Bill so that they could be used only for controlled airspace. I remind the House that clauses 2 and 3 will be used only when the Secretary of State considers that their use will assist in the delivery of the CAA’s airspace strategy. Airspace modernisation is not just about the masterplan or controlled airspace, as the hon. Member may feel; those are only two of the 15 initiatives in the CAA’s airspace modernisation strategy. To restrict the powers only to the masterplan or controlled airspace would put at risk the delivery of those other initiatives.
The hon. Member also asked me to confirm the circumstances in which the powers can be used; they are intended to be used as a last resort if the airspace change proposal is not progressed voluntarily. The CAA’s oversight team will work with sponsors to ensure, before it recommends to the Secretary of State that the direction powers be used, that they are not intended to be used if there are factors outside the airspace sponsor’s control. In any event, there are a number of procedural safeguards, such as consultation with the proposed recipient, the direction being in writing and the Secretary of State being of the view that the direction will assist in delivering the airspace modernisation strategy. There is also a provision to allow the recipient to appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal if it is claimed that the decision was based on an error of fact, wrong in law or made in the exercise of a discretion.
I have addressed all the new clauses and amendments; I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me one or two other words. I do not wish to detain Members any longer than is necessary, but while I am on my feet I thank all Members who have participated in the passage of this Bill. I thank the Committee Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for having expertly guided the Bill through Committee, and I thank the Opposition, and particularly the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), for their constructive criticism both here and in the other place. I thank the Bill team and all the team at the Department for Transport, the CAA and NATS, and the ministerial teams from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Ministry of Defence, all of whom have played critical parts in bringing the Bill to the House.
The Bill is critical and, as we have already rehearsed, will bring airspace into the modern age and deal with the opportunities and challenges in respect of drones and a number of other critical aspects of aviation. It has taken us some time to get the Bill all the way through both Houses and to the position we are in today, but it is vital that we have done so. I thank all Members for their part in having brought the Bill to this position and I commend it to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am not too sure how much more the Minister will say on Third Reading now, but we will wait to see.
John McDonnell [V]
He has confused me as well, Mr Deputy Speaker.
There has been an acknowledgement of the issues raised in the new clauses and amendments. It is clear that we all agree on the objectives, even if we do not agree on the path to achieve them. I am a great believer in the powers or conversion, so we will campaign on, but this evening I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(Robert Courts.)
Mike Kane
I am proud to have Manchester airport in my constituency, as you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am proud to be shadow aviation spokesman; and I am proud of this country’s world-class aviation sector, which is the third largest on the planet. We want to protect the sector, grow it and make it better. We want to protect and grow the interlinked aerospace sector, in which the UK has world-leading engine and aircraft manufacturers. Rolls met Royce in the Midland hotel in Manchester—that is where it came from. We want to facilitate the study of science, technology, engineering and maths subjects for all our young people who are looking at careers in this highly skilled, highly paid sector. We want to get past this pandemic, and we will keep our eyes on the horizon. This legislation helps us to do that.
I have already discussed, today and previously, the passion that the Minister and I share for airspace modernisation, and what it brings: increased capacity in our skies. The noise and carbon reduction that it will bring will make aviation in our country better. For the benefit of Members who missed the procedures in the other place, and have not got around to watching the Committee stage in this place, I will repeat my noble Friend Lord Rosser’s point that the provision for drone technology has not been updated since the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. He pointed out that that is closer to Yuri Gagarin’s first trip into space than it is to today; I will not regale the Minister again with Yuri Gagarin’s trip to Manchester in 1961, as I did in Committee.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you admonished me for going off-piste a few moments ago by talking about the Government’s lack of an aviation-specific deal. I was once given sage advice by the former Member for Buckingham and the previous Speaker of the House of Commons about never allowing bureaucracy a chance to say “no” to us in this place, so on that basis, I thank my caseworker Al Franco, who retires on Wednesday after a lifetime of service to the people of Manchester and Salford. He has worked for the late, great Paul Goggins and me over the past 10 years. Al has been a remarkable support to me, my team, and the communities of Wythenshawe and Sale East. I take this opportunity to thank him, and to wish him a long, happy retirement.
It has been a pleasure to work on this Bill, and I thank all those who the Minister has mentioned who have worked on it. I also thank the Minister for his courtesies during the passage of this Bill, and I will be pleased to see it gain Royal Assent.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We all wish your caseworker well in his retirement.
Gavin Newlands [V]
I will be mercifully brief as well. I echo the sentiments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). I am proud to represent Glasgow airport and to be the Scottish National party transport spokesperson. We have been speaking a lot about aviation over this past year. The UK has the third largest aviation sector in the world, but it is very unlikely to come out of this pandemic with the third largest aviation sector in the world unless the Government make good on their year-long pledge of proper sectoral support. I will be keeping up the pressure on the Minister on that basis.
However, in the meantime and with regard to this Bill, I thank the Minister, the Bill team and the Clerks. In particular, I thank Sarah and her colleagues in the Public Bill Office for their help and patience on issues such as last-minute amendments submitted at the 11th hour on Thursdays. With that, I will say that we support this Bill, and I am glad to see some progress on airspace modernisation: it is about time. I agree that we need to look at the issue of drones in a bit more detail, as the shadow Minister has already outlined.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]
Tuesday 20th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019-21 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 March 2021 - (22 Mar 2021)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
There are no counterpropositions to the Commons amendments to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill, so the only speakers are those listed and the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. Short questions of elucidation from listed speakers after the Minister’s response are discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.
Motion
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 and 2.
“(iv) an offence under the law of Scotland which arises under any other provision of the ANO 2016 and relates to unmanned aircraft, except an offence which is triable only summarily;”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for long with my explanation of these amendments, save only to note that the Bill had a relatively incident-free passage through the other place, which I, to a great extent, attribute to the careful consideration it received in your Lordships’ House.
The Bill has returned to enable consideration of two minor amendments made in the other place. The first is Commons Amendment 1, which removed the privilege amendment, as is the norm in these cases. The second amendment—here is the mea culpa—will correct an omission, or an error if you must, in the Bill that resulted from government amendments made in your Lordships’ House on Report.
If I may explain: Schedule 8 provides the police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and custodial institutions with the powers they need to protect the public from the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 sets out the meaning of “relevant unmanned aircraft offence”. Prior to the government amendment made in the other place, the offences in the Air Navigation Order 2016—ANO 2016—included in this definition were summary-only offences. In relation to Scotland, this definition should also include offences in ANO 2016 that are triable either way or on indictment. These offences were included in the definition of “relevant offence” in the Bill as introduced in January 2020. They were inadvertently omitted—that was the error, for which I apologise—by the government amendments tabled on Report in the House of Lords when the provisions setting out the definitions that apply in relation to the power to enter and search under warrant and the supplementary power to retain anything seized were restructured. If not moved, there would be no power for a justice of the peace, summary sheriff or a sheriff in Scotland to issue to a constable a warrant to enter and search premises in relation to offences in the ANO 2016 that relate to unmanned aircraft and can be tried under indictment. The supplementary power for a constable to retain items seized using powers in Schedule 8 for forensic examination, for investigation or for use as evidence at a trial would also not apply in relation to these offences.
The policy intention of the Bill remains unchanged and this amendment will not add any offences or powers not already in the Bill as introduced in January 2020. With humility and apologies from the Department for Transport, I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support the Commons amendments as technical changes necessary for the functioning of the Bill. The aviation industry is critical to the UK economy, and since any recovery will no doubt be prolonged, I hope the Bill will provide legislative backing for a modernisation strategy that supports that recovery. Any restructuring must be supported with a transitional strategy, for workers and our regional economy, that capitalises on the opportunity to grow industries in green technology. I look forward to the House revisiting this in the future. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, has engaged with the Opposition Front Bench during the passage of the Bill. I also thank all those from across the House who have taken part in its stages.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her gracious apology on behalf of the department for its omission. Of course, I accept that the amendments are necessary and, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I thank all the people who have been associated with the Bill during its fairly long passage. I hope it may now pass into law.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I too support these amendments. Finally, this Bill, which started its passage through Parliament in January 2020 is to reach the statute book. I am sure that, with a justified sense of pride and relief, the Minister and all those in her Bill team, who worked so hard to achieve this outcome, deserve the commendation received from all sides of the House.
It is a piece of legislation that will not stand still. The announcement that the CAA has approved trials of beyond-visual-sight operation of drones will need to be reflected in the instructions for policing unmanned aircraft presently set out in this legislation. That process will continue, I hope smoothly, as technology and experience help to chart the way ahead. Meanwhile, I join in commending the efforts made to enact this important business, for air traffic management in particular.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement on these amendments, and for their comments and short contributions today.
Royal Assent
Thursday 29th April 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)