Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Monday 27th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[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?

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Before the Minister sits down—because it seems to me that I have to use that ridiculous device—I reciprocate the thanks to the noble Baroness, her co-pilot the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the team. They have set a very high standard of involvement with the Opposition and the political parties and, I believe, with individuals. It is a standard which I hope the Government will copy in all areas. We have made great improvements to the Bill, and I do not think there has been a Division on anything. We are there, and I thank the Minister for that. I also thank my massive team of one-fifth of a person, Molly Critchley, for all her support.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, we have concentrated very much on charging points, but the Bill was amended on Report to cover hydrogen refuelling points. They may not need exactly the same thing, so I would like an assurance that the way they are treated will take account purely of what they are for rather than making the broad assumption that they are charging points and therefore electric only.

[Baroness Sugg]

I am happy to confirm that. Many amendments changed the Bill to ensure that we were dealing with hydrogen refuelling points as well. That was always the intent of the Bill but I agree that that was not clear enough, which is why we moved government amendments following interventions by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and others on that issue. The technology around hydrogen is not yet as advanced as it is around electric battery but we will be addressing our hydrogen strategy in the upcoming Road to Zero document.

Airports National Policy Statement

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, on the respite periods, the final flight paths obviously have not been confirmed yet, and I understand why there is frustration about that. The proposals to change airspace design have to follow the new airspace change process, which will be done in the coming years, in close consultation with the community.

On the 6.5 hour ban, it has not been decided between periods of 11 pm and 5.30 am exactly where that will go. As I say, that will also be done in consultation with local communities. We think that there could be more respite than that, and predictable respite too. Obviously, with a third runway, there will be more aircraft movements in the sky, so I acknowledge that there will be more noise. We have set out a comprehensive package of compensation, which includes noise insulation and improvements to public amenities.

On the surface access point, there is lots of investment to come on that. I would mention Crossrail, HS2 and Southern Rail and western rail access. There are clear commitments to 50% of public transport use by 2030 and 55% by 2040. Where that is directly to deal with expansion, it will be paid for by the developer.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which talks about ensuring timely delivery. One aspect of this will be a large number of legal challenges. What powers do the Government have, if any, to ensure after due process that this very expensive and ambitious programme will continue and be completed on time?

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is quite right to point out that there may well be judicial reviews around this. Obviously, we are expecting that. The Airports Commission asks that the runway is delivered by 2030. As I said, Heathrow is working to 2026, and we have independent appraisals on that and will work closely with it. We will of course follow correct judicial processes on this, but we will work with Heathrow to get this delivered for 2026, as I say.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

“Shame,” somebody said. The hydrogen compatibility amendments that the Minister has brought forward are very welcome. She illustrated their value by talking about what the Government are doing in investment in hydrogen. I cannot reasonably expect an answer now, but I wonder whether the Government have a fuller programme than the one she describes because, as far as I could understand from what she was saying, she was talking about the vehicle end of that, whereas I feel that with such a new technology some knowledge of government investment in the total hydrogen picture—the means of production, what the economics look like and so on—would be extremely valuable. If she is able to put that together in an interesting letter for all of us who have been involved in this debate, I would be very grateful.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, on the subject of title change, I think the Minister is absolutely right. I have some previous experience of trying to change the title of a Bill: the department was quite determined that the title could not be changed but further advice from the clerks of this House assured me that it could be, and that was accepted. So I hope there will be no misunderstandings this time.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I support Amendment 29 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. He is right about the need for such an authorised inspection regime, and in his worry about unauthorised repairs. The Committee may or may not be aware that a lot of trucks, and probably many modern trains and other big pieces of plant and equipment, are already remotely monitored. Where I live in Cornwall, outside the front door of the house is a 200-tonne gantry crane that operates on rubber tyres. It was manufactured in Italy and erected in Cornwall, and if the driver does the wrong thing, or the wrong person drives it, the people in Italy know exactly what is happening and they will stop it: they will prevent it operating. If it tries to lift 300 tonnes when it is capable of lifting only 250 tonnes it will be stopped, so that the equipment does not get severely damaged. That is very common, so my noble friend’s amendment is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will see the need for some kind of scheme to cover at least the specialist equipment that will be in the vehicles.

I worry about Amendment 3 and the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the word “adapted”. She said that adapting a vehicle would probably be done in a back yard somewhere, by somebody who probably would not know what they were doing, and could therefore be dangerous. That is certainly a worry. But the word “adapted” would also cover current vehicles adapted for people with certain disabilities—for example, if someone cannot use a brake pedal so there has to be a brake behind the steering wheel. I know we are talking about a different technology, but the word “adapted” will be difficult. I suggest to the noble Baroness that, if Amendment 29 were accepted, all vehicles, whether specialist, adapted or not, would have to be covered by the authorised “inspection, repair or maintenance”, so it would be better to go down that route rather than inserting the word “adapted”, as she suggests in Amendment 3.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I too have some difficulty with the word “adapted”. I understand that modern technology is more difficult to handle than when the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and I were pulling our Austin 7, or whatever it was, apart. Nevertheless, you cannot totally slam the door on any form of cottage or other industry which was set up in order to help individuals to produce an adaptation of a particular vehicle. I do not support this amendment in the way in which it is drafted.

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

My Lords, I too have some difficulty with this because I drive, I must confess, a Skoda. I am told that a brand new Skoda is built to my specifications when I order it, not before. It is not produced on a line but only when I order it and, therefore, each adaptation is my instruction to the manufacturer. Whether or not that is an adaptation I do not know, but we have to bear it in mind when considering this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendment 11 is in this group—a probing amendment, again on the subject of safety. I noticed that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered a Department for Transport memorandum which stated that,

“the Secretary of State will need to have regard to whether vehicles or types of vehicles have met international or domestic standards on the safe functioning of automated vehicles that will need to be met before the vehicles can lawfully be used on the roads”.

It went on to say about safety requirements that they were,

“likely to be recorded in a vehicle’s registration document”,

and,

“could therefore be identified either by type … or by reference to information in the registration document”.

Does that not overlook other essential safety requirements, such as the one I mention in my amendment—an MoT of the vehicle after so many years since new? Will the addition of greater and greater computer control and software mean that the current three years since new and yearly MoT thereafter will still be sufficient?

My amendment, and the much more comprehensive considerations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and by other noble Lords about safety requirements, suggest that, for a vehicle that is included on an approved list, there will be additional safeguards to consider before it can be legally insured for on-road use. I instanced an MoT as just one example of a safety issue that may have to be considered for the vehicle to be listed. Alternatively, can the Minister confirm whether existing or additional safety regulations may be required and are to be introduced in parallel with the Bill before a fully automated vehicle is insured for on-road use?

It is perhaps worth mentioning at this point that some test of competence might be required of the owner-occupant of a driverless vehicle. How might this bear on the issue of insurance cover for the individual in or in charge of the vehicle? I noted that a recent report, which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned, suggested that, even if the vehicle is travelling under automated lane control, for example, as is possible today, the driver’s seat has to be occupied and the occupant is responsible for retaining ultimate control of the vehicle, maybe without even briefly letting go of the steering wheel. From the Minister’s opening remarks, though, I now understand that this level of vehicle automation is not to be covered by the Bill. How then are the insurance arrangements for these types of vehicle to be taken care of—or are they already taken care of by existing legislation?

The departmental memorandum that I mentioned says that the Secretary of State’s decision is administrative in nature and so could be open to judicial review. In respect of introducing new technology, this could be a troublesome legal minefield, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has already mentioned. So I should be grateful to hear from the Minister about her department’s thinking on these safety issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a fast-moving industry, and we absolutely want to position ourselves at the front of it. As my noble friend pointed out, I am in an unusual situation of being offered powers to Government. This is a narrow Bill, which I acknowledged at the beginning. We have been trying to ask only for powers which we know how we will use in the future. We have an amendment from my noble friend coming up on that, and it has been interesting to hear people’s views. At the moment, the Bill is focused entirely on insurance, but I will be interested to hear views from everybody around the House ahead of Report.

In Amendment 11, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, is right to be concerned that vehicles must meet the appropriate safety standards, both before they are sold and to ensure their ongoing roadworthiness. They are important issues that will require attention from the Government, and we certainly expect safety throughout the vehicle’s life to form the basis of future regulation. We do not yet know, because of the technology, the timescale to expect for regular vehicle checks. As the standards have not yet been set, I am afraid that we are unable to introduce those detailed regulations at this time and in this Bill.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

On that point, the Minister says that the Government cannot introduce regulations at this time. Will it be primary legislation to do that, or does existing legislation give them the opportunity to produce regulations as and when required?

[Baroness Sugg]

Under the construction UNECE regulations, which are how we deal with conventional vehicles, we are able to introduce regulations, which is a potential future for automated vehicles. We have asked the Law Commission to do a far-reaching review on our regulatory framework for automated vehicles. That is designed to promote the safe development and use of automated vehicles, identify areas in the law that may be barriers to the use of automated vehicles, and propose potential solutions. One of those barriers was that we did not have an insurance framework, and those vehicles could not be insured. That is the purpose of the Bill. We are working with the Law Commission to understand where we need to make further primary or secondary legislation. As and when appropriate, the Government will come forward with legislative and regulatory proposals, and will absolutely consult on the detail.

I turn to the role of the insurer and my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 22. It is the policy intent of the Bill that it mirrors existing processes as closely as possible without making complex legislative changes to the existing framework. A vehicle is insured if there is in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road or other public place in Great Britain, a policy of insurance that satisfies the conditions in Section 145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is the contractual obligation of the insured person to provide accurate information to the insurer. Failure to do so may result in the policy being voided.

I understand that there is concern that we are proposing an insurance framework before we have agreed the safety standards, and before we are sure how we will regulate for those, but as I said, the Bill is designed to enable insurers to begin developing new insurance products, in response to a request from the insurance industry. We want those insurance products to be developed now so that it will encourage further investment and research in automated vehicles in the country—something I am sure noble Lords are in favour of.

I hope that these words have assured noble Lords that there will be comprehensive safety standards, which will be informed by consultation, to ensure that only automated vehicles that can be used safely will be placed on the list. Again, I am afraid, as the Bill is solely considering a list in relation to the insurance framework and not these safety standards at this stage, I hope the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness and the Government have made some good changes to the Bill, but I have one or two questions, which I am sure she will be able to answer. They relate to the definition of a “vehicle”. The word “vehicle” appears in Clause 1(1)(a)—“on a journey”, as the noble Baroness said—and subsection (2). She is then introducing—on page 2, line 9, through Amendment 3—“a mechanically propelled vehicle”, which seems to substitute the wording of subsection (6), which includes an,

“aircraft, motor vehicle, pedal cycle, train, vessel, hovercraft or submarine”.

I am glad she has got rid of some of those because that could be quite difficult.

However, she goes on to say in the interpretation—I know it is not in this group but I might as well mention it now—that Clause 7 defines an aircraft, but a “vehicle” also includes an aircraft. Presumably you can get done both ways, in either Clause 1 or Clause 2 or something. Perhaps she could explain whether these definitions include trains or bicycles, I just wonder whether a little bit of tidying up might be a good idea before the Bill reaches the statute book.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, noble Lords may recall that I moved some amendments to this important Bill, which of course has my full support. One of them dealt with the phrase “on a journey”. As is evident from the amendment, and others in the noble Baroness’s name, possible weaknesses in the original wording—that is, a risk of loopholes in the intended coverage of the Bill—have all now been addressed. I support the amendment and I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s receptive consideration of the points made in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

4: Clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out from “any” to end of line 15 and insert “person on the aircraft who is engaged in controlling it, or in monitoring the controlling of it.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, as I mentioned, this, like previous amendments that I tabled in Committee, aims to plug any possible legal loopholes in the Bill. This amendment improves on my attempt in Committee. It is vital that both the pilot of an aircraft and other flight deck or crew members whose contribution to the control responsibilities of the pilot are critical to the safe operation of that aircraft are fully covered in the Bill. This form of words achieves that additional coverage. I am grateful for the discussion I had with the noble Baroness and for her Bill team’s helpful guidance on precise wording, so I look forward to her agreement to the amendment, which I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

I certainly support the principle behind the amendment, but I am aware that the Government are keen to keep the Bill as simple as possible, and I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade us that it is already covered in other ways. It is essential that co-pilots are also covered. Attempts have been made in government amendments to broaden the Bill—for example, to include towers at airports. That is welcome, but it is important that we ensure that the co-pilot—the person sitting alongside the pilot —is covered, because if the pilot is dazzled, undoubtedly anyone sitting next to them will be as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley]

I very much welcome this approach, and the tidying up of the original interpretations in Clause 1(10). It has sensibly removed references to submarines and pedal cycles, neither of whose operators seem particularly at great risk from a laser beam. It will cover the coachmen of horse-drawn vehicles, which provoked some examples of misinformed or imprecise reporting following the Committee stage. I wish to record that for horse-drawn vehicles, as for all other types of vehicle, the person responsible for controlling the vehicle—in this case, the coachman—is who I had in mind. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her positive consideration in arranging for these improvements to the Bill.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I just want to clarify something I said earlier, because if I do not, the lawyers will start nitpicking at vast expense. Presumably “vehicle” in Amendment 7 includes trains—I think it should. Does it include bicycles, and people on bicycles? The controller of the vehicle is the person at whom the laser may be directed. Then we have things called segways, scooters and single-wheel segways. If they are all vehicles, that is fine by me, but I hope people will not start nitpicking and say, “Well, it’s not this, it’s the other”. I hope the definition is comprehensive.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, with his incisive critique of many aspects of the Bill. I understand that the Government are keen to be seen to be helpful and supportive of this new technology. The content and thrust of the Bill before the House today amply demonstrate that enthusiasm. It smacks of a “just do it” approach to this topic. I have no wish to be a spoil-sport but I am astonished that almost nothing is said, let alone covered, about safety: that is, road safety.

Not one element of the Bill has any realism unless the listed driverless vehicles are known to be safe for use on motorways, on all other major or minor roads up and down the country, on streets and avenues and in other urban settings wherever they may be cleared and allowed to roam. The safety not only of the occupants of the driverless car but of all other road users must be fully considered and regulated.

There must be negligible probability that they will behave like bumper cars, banging into each other or other vehicles or road users, or striking and damaging property. However, the Bill’s total coverage of this critical issue is limited to,

“in the Secretary of State’s opinion”—

in Clause 1(1)(b)—and a number of references to “safety-critical software”. It may be that the Secretary of State’s opinion will be that a particular type of vehicle can be used driverlessly only on motorways or dual-carriage highways, or he may have other ways of bracketing or classifying different makes or models of driverless vehicles and where, or where not, they may go.

While manufacturers’ undertakings will be an important guide, they surely cannot be the last word. One has but to recall the problems over diesel exhaust emissions to know how to answer that question. How is the Secretary of State to be satisfied that some enthusiastic DIY driverless car maker’s pet construction passes muster for safety—the safety, that is, not only of the occupants of the driverless car but of all other road users? It and all driverless-capable vehicles must be well described and regulated in ways that address the fundamental point of “safe to use”. Surely some MOT coverage of the automatics and its software will be necessary, too, as the vehicle ages.

Whatever methods the Secretary of State might use to arrive at their opinion, there must be some clear, publicly transparent criteria that underpin the opinion and manufacturers’ claims. In her letter of 8 February the Minister stated that the,

“approval process, which ensures that all”,

automated,

“vehicles on our roads are safe, is still in its infancy”.

She also mentioned discussions with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on this topic. But surely we must have our own national standards set out if we wish to be in the vanguard of using this new technology.

The repeated use of the phrase “safety-critical software” worries me, too. It is presumably meant to sound reassuring—until we ask how “safety-critical” is defined and who decides. Does it not imply that the vehicle was unsafe before the software update? There are also the so-called ethical and moral issues touched on in debates in the other place. I shall not dwell on them, but of course they will need resolution.

Without in any way trying to detract from the purpose of the Bill, I invite the noble Baroness to give some indication or explanation as to how the Government view and will deal with the road safety and ethical aspects of these vehicles and give insurers confidence in the safety performance of the new vehicles that they will be asked to insure. On a perhaps slightly lighter note, I hope that a more user-friendly word or expression than the phrases “driverless vehicle” or the even more legalistic and laborious “automated vehicle when driving itself” might be adopted. Once these vehicles become more than a pipe dream, the public will surely have coined a word. Look how the word “mobile” has been coined for such telephones. Might the now archaic word “autocar”, unhyphenated, first in use in the 1880s, and “autovan”, et cetera, be adopted? Perhaps the Minister might consider this use, with a definition in the Bill that resurrects this 19th-century word—or suggest another more user-friendly descriptor should the magazine Autocar decide to claim prior rights to the word.

While I might have no difficulty sitting back and reading the paper or answering my mobile as my automated vehicle—my autocar—takes me safely along a motorway or major dual carriageway, I doubt that I could feel safe on the many narrow and winding roads I frequently use when at home in Norfolk. Often, when another car approaches and the road is too narrow for both to pass, one courteously backs to a spot where the verge has been sufficiently flattened to allow enough space for the other to squeeze by. Will driverless cars display such courtesy or be able to decide which should reverse? How about roadworks that require vehicles to queue and pass in turn? Will the autocar approaching a stationary queue of cars ahead, waiting for the controlling traffic lights to go from red to green, too far ahead to be visible from the back of the queue, be able to distinguish that back of the queue from a couple or more vehicles parked by the side of the road, or will it erroneously decide to overtake?

Getting such autocar decisions wrong would have obvious safety risks. Even if such roadworks are hazard-signed and preregistered on GPS, there are also so-called mobile roadworks, with traffic control being maintained by two individuals with stop and go boards. Could an automatic vehicle cope with that as well, or would such roadworks have to be banned? These are but a couple of examples of my actual road traffic experiences in the past couple of weeks. Until such issues are resolved, the hype about the benefits that autocars will bring to those unable to drive themselves seems wildly premature.

To conclude, will the noble Baroness explain the Government’s thinking on their approach to safety in the regulation, approval and use of autocars? I am of course confident that her department will have been giving safety much thought—so, if the noble Baroness prefers, I am happy for her to write to me. With that, I have no other points to raise.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out “beam” and insert “device”

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to the first group of amendments, Amendments 1, 4, 5 and 7, which are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. I fully support the purposes of this short Bill and I thank the Minister for her thoughtful letter of 15 January, copied in the Library, commenting on points that I made at Second Reading. These amendments, and others in my name which come later, have been drafted in an attempt purely to highlight, and as necessary close, any possible legal loopholes in the intended coverage of the Bill.

As I mentioned at Second Reading, I felt that the use of “beam” as a generic description of all lasers was inadequate. There are other lasers that fire bursts or pulses of light. A laser exists that uses infrared bursts, down which a lightning-type bolt will travel to hit a target, rather like an extended Taser shot. On YouTube, you can see demonstrations of so-called laser guns and laser rifles. There are a number of hand-held laser-type devices at prototype stage for use in conflict or riot control. If developed into production, such devices could be acquired and misused in ways featured in this Bill. Laser technology is still developing. A beam is defined in this context by the Oxford English Dictionary as a ray or shaft of light. This does not seem to be sufficiently comprehensive, even when combined with the descriptor “laser”, as in “laser beam”. The Minister’s letter defines “laser” by coherence and as comprising a single frequency of light, and equates that to “beam” in the Bill.

My simple amendment, replacing the word “beam” with “device”, in no way detracts from the beam connotation but seeks to cover all types of laser, existing or in future development, more comprehensively than just using the word “beam”. As I am no expert in electronic engineering, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Oxburgh, a most respected fellow of the Royal Society and former chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence. His support, and some legally informed support, gave me confidence to pursue this point in Committee and to explore the Minister’s brief dismissal at Second Reading and her subsequent, rather superficial justification for relying on the word “beam” in the Bill. The combination of the words “laser device” and,

“shines or directs a laser device towards a vehicle”,

as would appear in the Bill if this amendment were accepted, seem to deal with a beam and with any other or future type of laser that might be misused.

Finally, I have a query. Should a low-power, clinically safe laser be used, would its low power be an acceptable defence because it could do no more than possibly dazzle or distract the person with control of the vehicle, at worst? A laser’s power is not mentioned in the Bill. Is the Minister satisfied? Perhaps she will let me know at a later date that power is not relevant to the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Oxburgh (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig. We should be grateful to him for drawing attention to this aspect of the Bill. I apologise to the Committee for not having been free to participate at Second Reading. Fundamentally, what my noble and gallant friend is trying to do is to future-proof and, dare I say, lawyer-proof the Bill. It would not be useful to have counsels who did not really understand what they were about arguing over this in court.

I notice that the last five or six subsections of Clause 1 relate to definitions of words which are in general, commonplace use. I suggest that the Minister adds a subsection to that group defining what the Government mean by laser. In doing so, dare I suggest that she consult the holder of my former office in the MoD, who could give up-to-date advice on appropriate wording for the definition of a laser here? The fact is that there are lasers of different kinds, different definitions of laser and some devices which would be called a laser under one definition but not another. It would be quite useful to add a subsection, duly considered, from an authoritative source that dealt with that.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the noble and gallant Lord will be content with these assurances and withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this debate, and the Minister for her full explanation of the position taken by her department. I have no intention of pushing this beyond the discussion that we have had, but I look forward to any further suggestions coming from the Government on Report, such as a definition of “beam”, which I would welcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

9: Clause 1, page 2, line 9, after second “vehicle,” insert “horse drawn vehicle,”

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I suggested at Second Reading that a horse-drawn vehicle or carriage should be included for completeness. In her reply to that debate, the noble Baroness merely stated that horse-drawn carriages would not be covered by this Bill as,

“We have not seen any evidence of a problem”.—[Official Report, 9/1/18; col. 176.]


In her letter of 15 January, the noble Baroness did not further refer to my raising this omission at Second Reading, but I feel the list of vehicles is incomplete without it. While no such attack may have yet taken place, that alone is no reason not to include it. I gave the example of the coachman driving the state coach with Her Majesty on board. There are many more uses of horse-drawn carriages or vehicles which also deserve consideration so that we give the driver protection.

I hope that, on reflection, the Minister will agree that a horse-drawn vehicle has as much of a place in the Bill as all the other road vehicles listed, including even pedal cycles, and they should also be added to Clause 1(7) at line 11 on page 2. I am not proposing that horse riders should also be included, though I do wonder about the risk of an attack on huntsmen by hunt saboteurs. Such an offence may already be covered by other legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I do not have much to say, but I thought I had to say something. I was quite surprised that the Government had decided to define “vehicle” in the Bill. I believe there is a good working definition of the word in law, which would have included horse-drawn vehicles. I had a little chuckle when I came to submarines, because I have some problem envisaging how you could dazzle one, but I suppose it could be possible. I say put the horses in as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sugg]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. I do not believe there are any such instances, but if there are I will certainly write to him with that information. That is a very good point. As I say, I will take it back and consider it. We should return to this at a later stage. With that, I ask the noble and gallant Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this very short debate. I listened, obviously, to what the Minister had to say. I am still a little uneasy about the argument that, because this has not happened, therefore we do not need to worry about it. Pedal cyclists are already covered by the Bill. I wonder how many attacks on pedal cyclists have taken place to justify including them in the Bill. Having said that, I again thank everybody who has spoken and the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

11: Clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out “pilot” and insert “individual”

[Lord Craig of Radley]

The restriction in the case of aircraft to just “any pilot” at page 2, line 14 of the Bill is not comprehensive enough. It does not specifically include other members on an aircraft’s flight deck, in a rear cockpit, or in the cabin of a helicopter, who may not be pilots but have key roles in monitoring the control of the aircraft. Take the example of a two-seater fighter fast jet aircraft with a pilot in the front seat and a navigator in the rear, the latter also monitoring height and speed. A laser attack on the latter reported to the pilot could prove to be very distracting at a critical point—say on final approach to a landing. Or consider a search and rescue helicopter having to manoeuvre in a very constricted space surrounded by trees or buildings. The pilot is totally reliant on the winchman in the rear cabin of the helicopter for moment-to-moment guidance on to a tight landing spot or in holding a safe hover close to obstructions or even a cliff face.

More generally, the likelihood is that whoever was actually lasered in the crew, all, including the pilot in charge, would be concerned and distracted, maybe at a demanding moment in their flight. However, the defence might argue that the culprit with the laser did not shine it at the front cockpit, or where the pilot was sitting in a larger aircraft. Surely, the Minister does not think that the person misusing a laser against an aircraft should not be charged if it were not directed directly at the actual pilot in command but only at non-pilot crew members who are of critical importance to the safe operation of the aircraft.

The Bill includes captain, navigator and pilot in the case of vessels, but the vessel’s velocity or speed will be a matter of a few knots compared with that, say, of aircraft flying at speeds of 150 or 200 knots and perhaps more. It seems incongruous for the Bill to identify for protection a number of specified individuals in charge of a relatively slow-moving vessel compared with just the pilot alone for an aircraft on final approach to landing, which may be flying at, 10, 20, even 30 times the speed of such a vessel. The risks of a calamity occurring rapidly in the latter case are obviously very much greater. Crew teamwork is essential for both aircraft and helicopter operations.

My amendment seeks to overcome any possible defence that the attack had not been directed specifically at the pilot in charge. If the noble Baroness is intent on retaining the reference to pilot rather than my suggested word “individual”, she might like to consider for Report the alternative of adding “or other flight crew member” after “pilot” in line 14 of page 2. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, I am again very grateful for the experience and expertise of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, in this area. Once again, he has raised a salient point through this amendment.

In the Bill we have sought to capture those persons who are in control of the vehicle, and, in the case of aircraft, we have said that this will be pilots. The Bill specifically refers to pilots “monitoring the controlling” of aircraft to capture co-pilots, who defence lawyers could argue are not controlling the aircraft but who none the less should be covered by the offence because of the important role they play in the safe flying of aircraft. In some cases, members of the flight crew may have a safety-critical role and control of the aircraft but would not be classified as pilots. As I have said, the intention of the Bill is to cover all persons who have control of the vehicle.

I understand there are a number of instances where the non-pilot members of the flight crew could have some control of the vehicle, such as flight engineers or, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, highlighted, winch operators on search and rescue helicopters. If these members of the flight crew were dazzled or distracted by a laser beam, it is highly likely that the pilot would be too. I understand that the current wording in the Bill could cause some ambiguity and a possible loophole, so I will ask the Bill team to look carefully at ways in which this can be clarified.

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for raising this issue. I hope that he is assured that it is something we will look at carefully and that he will agree to withdraw his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

Obviously, I am grateful to the Minister. I thank her very much indeed and look forward to the further work she will produce on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

13: Clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
““journey” includes all stages of a journey, whether the vehicle is stationary or in motion, beginning when the person with control of the vehicle occupies it and ending when the person with control of the vehicle no longer occupies it;”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, it is me again with Amendment 13, in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monks, to whom I am most grateful. Like several other noble Lords at Second Reading I felt that there was a need to clarify the meaning of the word “journey” in the Bill. In her letter of 15 January, the Minister set out her interpretation of “journey” but wrote that she had asked her officials to,

“look at ways in which we can ensure that it is interpreted as intended”.

I await her contribution when replying. Meanwhile, this amendment is one attempt. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Monks.

At Second Reading, the Minister said that this point had come up in earlier legislation, so I feel that, for the avoidance of doubt and any possible loophole in the coverage of the Bill, some definition should be included in it. Even this definition does not fully deal with the point made at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, who said that the dictionary definition of “journey” means a move from one place to another, from A to B. However, were it to be defined for the purposes of the Bill to cover the time from occupation of the vehicle until leaving it, the fact it departed from A and returned to A at the end of the journey might be sufficiently well covered. I beg to move.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble and gallant Lord on this matter. For example, it is very likely that training flights, which are of course an important part of aviation, most often begin and end at the same aerodrome. I am slightly unpersuaded, as is the noble and gallant Lord, that they are covered by the Bill, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me.

[Baroness Sugg]

My Lords, the Government’s intention in the Bill is to cover both when a vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary if the vehicle is about to travel. There would be a safety risk in both cases if the person in control were to be dazzled or distracted.

A journey is intended to start when the vehicle is ready to commence travel. It includes taxiing in the case of aircraft, and for all vehicles will cover any temporary stops along the way, such as stops at a train station, bus stop or traffic lights, or when waiting to take off. It is also intended to capture journeys of any length and to include a journey that returns to the same place at which it began.

I appreciate the points that have been made and what the amendment is aiming to clarify. It is our intention that if the aircraft is about to travel or has not finished shutting down after coming to a stop, this should be covered, as there could still be a risk to transport safety. The Government believe that saying that all periods should be covered, including when a person occupies the vehicle, potentially goes too wide, as that person could be in the vehicle for a long time before the journey commenced or after it finished, when there would not be a risk to transport safety.

At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, highlighted the definition of “journey”, which can be found in the international aviation treaty—the Tokyo Convention. It states that an aircraft is in flight from the moment when all its external doors are closed following embarkation until the moment when any such door is opened for disembarkation. We intend the Bill to cover that definition, but I accept the questions raised in relation to the current wording and will ask the drafters to look at this matter carefully.

A point was made about journeys—including training flights, which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne—which start in one place and return to that same place. It is absolutely our intention that these types of journeys will be covered by the Bill but, again, I will look at the options for making sure that that is clearer.

I hope that I have been able to clarify our intention when the word “journey” is used but, as I said, we will look at this further to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the interpretation. On that basis, I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will withdraw his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

I thank the noble Baroness and others who have spoken in this short debate. Of course, I am very happy to wait until Report to see what she comes up with. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Bill [HL]

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, fully support the thrust of this small Bill. As has been pointed out, there has been a considerable increase in laser-pointing at aircraft in recent years. No doubt the growing availability of laser devices online and elsewhere risks even greater exposure to such totally irresponsible and potentially dangerous use. Even a low-power beam can distract; a higher-powered device can blind. Videos demonstrating the efficacy of hand-held laser guns and rifles can be seen on YouTube. So I was pleased to learn yesterday of the government steps to clamp down on the sale and import of unsafe lasers, although a definition of unsafe—unless I missed it—was not actually mentioned.

It is right to criminalise all dangerous, distracting use of lasers against aircrew and to take this opportunity to extend the scope of the legislation to other types of vehicle and to protect the individuals in control or responsible for monitoring their safe operation.

In order to reduce or remove possible doubts about the coverage of the Bill, I have a few questions that, having given her notice, I hope the Minister will be able to deal with in her closing remarks. First, the Bill refers very specifically to the misuse of a laser beam. Some lasers are described as “pulse” or “burst” lasers, which may achieve higher powers than beam ones at similar distances. While the devices currently used are probably all of a beam type, is the Minister confident that both pulse and burst, or indeed any other variants of laser, are captured? This legislation just sticks to the one-word description “beam”. Would a laser gun or rifle be captured too? Might it make sense to use the phrase “laser device” or “laser pointer” in place of “laser beam” where it appears in this Bill to avoid any risk of creating a possible loophole in the legislation?

Secondly, Clause 1(8) refers just to a pilot of an aircraft. Larger aircraft will have flight deck crew members, not necessarily pilots, who as well as the pilot will have a role in monitoring the control of the aircraft. In the case of vessels, hovercraft and submarines, the involvement of the master or navigator as well as a pilot is included. As automation advances, even the use of the word “pilot” as a descriptor of the person in command and/or controlling an air vehicle might become outmoded. Might it therefore be better to use the word “individual” rather than the more restrictive word “pilot” in Clause 1(8) to cover the flight deck crew members or anyone else other than the pilot on board?

Thirdly, I seek to clarify the precise definitions of the start and end of a journey, as used in the Bill. For an air vehicle, this will include any ground movements—for example, taxiing to and from take-off and landing points, as described in the Explanatory Notes. What about an airliner stationary in its parking bay with its engines running? Opportunities for a member of the public in an airport terminal viewing area to use a handheld laser might exist at this point. Furthermore, is a road vehicle—presumably including motorbikes and other wheeled vehicles that use a motor to propel them—that is occupied, but not yet on the move, on its journey? I guess not, but it would be right to be sure.

Fourthly, I wonder whether for completeness horse-drawn carriages should be included. Should the risk to a coachman or driver be covered? An attempt to dazzle or distract the driver of a state coach with the monarch on board surely must be a crime.

The list of stakeholders mentioned in the pre-brief before the Recess included a variety of civil-aviation-related organisations—for example, BALPA, the CAA and the National Police Air Service. The MoD and the armed services were not. Has the MoD been consulted? The proposals deal only with the lasering of vehicles in the UK, but a service person, or a civilian subject to service discipline, might be chargeable under Section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for such a criminal offence when the Bill becomes law, even if committed overseas. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurances on these points of detail. Meanwhile, I support the Bill.

Electric Car Ownership

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan]

Noble Lords will probably realise that it is very dangerous for me to speculate on what the Chancellor might do in future Budgets with regard to tax levels.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that insuring electric cars appears to be extremely expensive? Certainly my attempts were declined: I could not get insurance, even though I have a complete no-claims bonus—the full length. When I did eventually find an insurer, it was going to cost me £1,500—so I have not got an electric car.

[Lord Callanan]

I think the noble and gallant Lord might find that that was less to do with the car and more to do with his personal circumstances.