Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Campbell-Savours

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[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.

Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Campbell-Savours

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard)
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[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.

Liaison Committee

Debate between Lord Naseby and Lord Campbell-Savours

Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not my practice to question decisions of the Liaison Committee, having spent some years on the committee myself. I congratulate those who have been successful in their applications. I understand that not everyone can be pleased, but I am finding it difficult to understand the Liaison Committee’s attitude to yet another failed application for an ad hoc inquiry into national identity cards.

The story I am hearing is that the committee felt that attitudes to the introduction of national identity cards are too polarised, with strong feelings on both sides of the argument. There was also a view that the Government were unlikely to respond positively. I was a member of the committee when additional resources were made available to increase the number of inquiries: the ability to deal with difficult issues, where further thinking was required, was one of the principal reasons for setting them up, and the potential response of the Government was not to be a consideration for the committee. Its remit was to carry out in-depth inquiries, enabling Parliament and the public access to information on what are sometimes the most difficult subjects.

This application was supported by four former Cabinet Ministers in both Labour and Conservative Governments, yet the application was rejected. The truth is that only we in this House can do this work in depth. Those of us who have been in the Commons know that Select Committee examinations of issues take place only over short periods: two months for a Select Committee inquiry in the Commons is a lengthy inquiry. The potential of ad hoc committees is for six- and 12-month inquiries, enabling us to carry them out in far greater depth.

I understand the position of the Liberal Democrats on the committee because historically they have been opposed to national identity cards, but I am having great difficulty understanding the position of the Government. A huge change is taking place in both Houses of Parliament in attitudes to national identity cards. There is strong support among Conservative supporters in the country. I say to Conservative Members of this House that they should check with their own associations because my Conservative friends—and there are quite a few of them—almost universally tell me that they support the introduction of national identity cards. Furthermore, there is no longer pressure on the Government from the Liberal Democrats, as there was when they were in coalition, when they blocked the Labour Government’s initiative of introducing national identity cards. Moreover, we now have the Brexit debate, where the issue of identity is becoming more important. On my own Benches, there is overwhelming support for the reintroduction of national identity cards. Whereas originally they were voluntary, after a compromise arrangement was made, many of my colleagues now believe that they should be mandatory.

However, there are aspects of the Liaison Committee procedures that I believe need further thought. First, there is a member of the Government on the committee: the Leader of the House. I have no objections to the Leader of the House being on the committee but whether the Leader of the House should influence what is essentially a Back-Bench decision made by the committee is questionable. Then there is the question of who is actually making the decisions. We know that at least one member was called away on important business abroad when some of the applications were approved, although all members approve the final list on a write-round.

I believe we need an amendment to the way the committee deals with applications. As ad hoc committees make an important contribution to the House’s work and reputation, they should be the subject of a special approval procedure. All committee members should be required to list their preferences and, after either a formal or an informal consultation with their own groups, then make the decisions. Decisions on ad hoc committees can influence the credibility of the House and they should reflect the widest possible consultation and consideration. A handful of members, dependent on their diaries, able to attend a committee only at a particular time, is a totally inadequate basis on which to make such important decisions, which command hundreds of thousands of pounds of the House’s resources.

Finally, in light of what has happened, I have a suggestion—perhaps even a solution. Why can the House authorities not be tasked to find the additional resource in this year to fund an additional ad hoc committee? The Clerk of the Parliaments and officials responsible for financial control, through their diligence and sensitive understanding of our needs, have made huge savings on House expenditure over recent years. Why cannot a little of that saving find its way into an additional ad hoc committee on this important issue? The introduction of these cards is an extremely important issue in these times of both social and economic instability internationally. An ID card inquiry is now a must and Parliament needs to move with the public debate. I call upon the House authorities to seriously consider whether the additional resources can be found.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I should like to make a short additional point. It seems to me that your Lordships spend an enormous amount of time and use quality arguments, and we produce good reports. Unfortunately, those reports seem to get very little exposure in the nation and in the departments of state. This is somewhat in contrast to the Public Accounts Committee in another place, which I had the privilege to be on for some 12 years. Every one of its reports was covered in all the media that are worth talking about and by every department of state. Perhaps I may say to the Senior Deputy Speaker that he and his colleagues need to look at the distribution of these reports and what happens to them, and make sure that they reach the potential audience for which they were originally prescribed.