Space Industry Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th October 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

7: Clause 9, page 7, line 37, leave out “to (4)” and insert “and (3)”

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 7, I shall speak also to Amendments 8, 11 and 12 in this group. The Bill requires, in Clause 9(4) on page 7:

“As regards risks to the health, safety and property of persons not within subsection (2)”—


subsection (2) is about individuals who take part—

“the applicant must have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that those risks are as low as reasonably practicable”,

and,

“the level of those risks must be acceptable”.

This set of amendments vests the responsibility for certificating that this level of risk has been achieved in the Health and Safety Executive.

I start by thanking the Minister for the time that he has given to talk to us about the Bill—therefore, I cannot pretend that this is a probing amendment. I for one, and the rest of our Front Bench to a degree, feel that the Bill is premature. The two-year gap envisaged between the Bill becoming and Act and the full emergence of the regulations suggests to us that introducing the Bill at a later time would have been more efficient and allowed fuller scrutiny on a more comprehensive Bill. That is particularly drawn out in the whole safety issue.

The bit of the Bill that I have read requires the concept of the risks to what I shall call uninvolved third parties to be reduced to “as low as reasonably practicable”. That is a very widely used concept in the safety world—a complex concept that weighs benefits against risks and costs.

I shall take a view of the benefits of the Bill. The Minister quoted the importance and value of the space industry to the United Kingdom, and I would not in any way demur from that, but we are not talking about creating it or not, or the space industry carrying on in future or not. We are talking about two capabilities. One is about inserting the satellites into orbit and the other is space tourism. I know that some other things are prayed in aid, but that as a generality covers what the Bill will provide.

There is no way in which we are going to be a first mover in inserting satellites into orbit. The Americans, Russians, French and Chinese are all in this business. The Minister suggested that there was a special European dimension, and there may be, but to a degree inserting satellites into orbit is likely to become a commodity, especially as satellites become smaller and less weighty. There is a benefit, but the benefit will have to be judged in the whole balance of achieving “as low as reasonably practicable”.

I find the concept of space tourism extremely difficult to grapple with in safety terms. The nearest thing we have had to sustained space tourism was the shuttle programme. There were 135 missions; two ended catastrophically and 14 people died. I doubt that there is genuinely much of a market for tourism which involves a one in 65 chance of dying. The Virgin Galactic programme has also been mentioned. This has so far resulted in one destroyed aircraft and one dead pilot. Broadly speaking, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act requires that an activity where an employee runs a risk of more than one in 1,000 is unacceptable and should simply not happen. I find it difficult to believe that, with the risks apparent at the moment, space tourism would be certificated in this country in the near future.

Although the benefits of the industry as a whole are valid, it is less clear how great they are for this particular capability. They would also need to be balanced in meeting the requirements of the clause that protects the safety of uninvolved third parties, whose exposure is nicely brought out in annexe C to the letter which the Minister was good enough to write to me and some other noble Lords. It stated:

“The current UK aviation regulatory regime prioritises the safety of the aircraft and its occupants and does not directly regulate the safety of third parties on the ground ... If the level of safety for the aircraft and its occupants is sufficient then by default third parties can be considered appropriately protected”.


This approach is clearly not sufficient in this direction, either in its outcome or in its nature.

Generally speaking, there are two ways of developing a safety regime. There is the accident-led way: an enormous proportion of our safety law—fire law, building regulations et cetera—comes from accidents from which we learn. It may surprise noble Lords to learn that aviation safety essentially has the same basis. When I was involved in the industry in the 1960s, a British-registered jet aircraft crashed about every two years. When I entered the profession it was dangerous, with a chance of dying of about one in 2,000 per annum. Before civil aviation had its many crashes, the military was exploring the edges of the envelope and having similar numbers of them. The industry developed a high-quality investigation regime and slowly learned from these events. It then put them into regulations and co-operation emerged, both in the industry and internationally, which has refined itself into today’s civil aviation regime. I am not questioning its effectiveness, but one has to recognise its background. It is about experimenting, having events and then learning from them. That is my first point in arguing that the civil aviation approach is not suitable for this industry.

Secondly, the hybrid launch concept will not be certificatable within the normal civil aviation system. Basically, you cannot certificate aeroplanes to carry rockets. One has to realise that a rocket is merely a managed explosion. Those of us who remember the early days of spaceflight know that when rockets go wrong they turn into explosions. Carrying a rocket, these aircraft will be highly specialised and certainly will not fall naturally into any certification regime. As the Minister’s quotation illustrated, the consequences on the ground of an aircraft with a rocket on board crashing will have to be addressed. The presumption that the airplane and its occupants are safe will not be proven to the level by which one can disregard the impact of such a crash.

Thirdly, in a hybrid approach, not only do we have to look at the risks to aircraft used to launch rockets, we also have to look at rocket-propelled aircraft. One of the many ideas used to illustrate the potential value of spaceports are rocket-propelled aircraft, which will be an entirely new area of risk. The Bill allows for vertically launched rockets, and these will need to be assessed. Therefore, I argue that the aviation approach is not appropriate or called for by the Bill. It calls for an ALARP approach, which essentially, as I have already said, balances the benefits against the risks. It is a forward-looking approach and is used in nuclear, the railway environment and safety-critical industries. To meet this requirement one needs competence in the ALARP approach. Our amendments argue that that competence is held by the Health and Safety Executive.

However, as important as the requirement in connection with the body certifying that the level of risk has been reduced to as low as reasonably practicable is the requirement that from the beginning we have a single point of responsibility for safety. For most of my career I have been involved in safety-critical environments. It is almost impossible to stress the improvement in safety whereby an individual accountable to his board or organisation goes to bed knowing that if there is an incident in the area for which he or she is responsible, they cannot say, “That was their fault”, because, at least to some extent, it is that person’s responsibility. The most that person can do is join other parties in their responsibility. The responsibility lies with the individual and the organisation. Therefore, I believe that we need a single authority and an ALARP approach as an integrated whole that can look at the benefits and the risks posed by events and the consequences. We argue that only the Health and Safety Executive, with appropriate professional inputs, can meet that requirement and has the experience and skill to deliver this judgment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I associate myself with the intention behind these amendments. In preparing for the Bill, I spoke to a wide range of individuals and organisations involved in the space industry. They undoubtedly take health and safety very seriously and are surprised at the low density of detail in the Bill in relation to those aspects. Noble Lords across the Chamber have said several times this afternoon how exciting and important this issue is. There is undoubtedly lots of enthusiasm but, looked at dispassionately, this is a dangerous activity for those involved in it and others who are not involved but who live in the surrounding area or, indeed, almost anywhere in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out the potential for space tourism without people even leaving the ground as there will be viewing platforms and so on. All these things have to be considered from the health and safety standpoint. I have become increasingly concerned about the clutter in our skies. We are all familiar with planes but we are increasingly concerned about drones, and now we are taking into account space activity. Our skies are crowded and it is important that the Government set out a comprehensive, co-ordinated and truly effective approach to these issues.

[Lord Callanan]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their important interventions on the vital topic of safety, which we take extremely seriously.

Clauses 9 and 10 require that applicants for spaceflight operator and spaceport licences take all reasonable steps to ensure that risks to health and safety of the general public—as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, observed—are as low as reasonably practicable. Furthermore, Clause 9(4)(b) means that even after all steps have been taken to reduce risk to as low as is reasonably practicable, the regulator will not issue a licence if the risk to public health and safety remains unacceptably high.

The noble Lord raised through these amendments the question of the role that we expect the Health and Safety Executive to have regarding spaceflight in the UK. The Health and Safety Executive has undoubted expertise and a long track record in a breadth of issues and across a range of sectors. Clause 20 ensures that the regulator is able to draw on this expertise to inform decision-making in connection with safety of spaceflight activities. This is consistent with the role the Health and Safety Executive plays in other sectors. The Health and Safety Executive does not normally regulate by licensing or certifying safety. Instead, it imposes a duty on those that may create risk to manage those risks to be as low as reasonably practicable.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The noble Lord will accept that the Health and Safety Executive in the permissioned industries—for instance, nuclear, railways and several others—directly approves the operation of those industries.

[Lord Callanan]

I will come on to that point shortly.

I am confident that the approach we are taking is appropriate. In line with agreed health and safety practice, the Bill places the onus on the regulator to be satisfied that risks are as low as reasonably practicable and that they are acceptable. But equally, the Bill ensures that the regulator will have access to the expertise possessed by the Health and Safety Executive, where this is required. I stress that this is expertise we have already benefited from. I thank the Health and Safety Executive for the integral role it has played in developing this legislation with my department and the UK Space Agency.

I will share some detail on how we believe regulators will determine whether risk to public safety is acceptable. The approach will be aligned with best practices for managing risk across all sectors in the UK. We expect to use an individual risk per annum approach—in other words, in a given location, the risk of death arising from the activity to an individual across a reference period of one year. The regulator will publish a methodology for assessing risk which operators may choose to use. The Government are currently working with HSE’s Science Division—its research arm—to develop a comprehensive methodology for the assessment of risk to third parties.

How can we be assured that the regulator will have the appropriate personnel and skills to assess the safety cases presented by operators? The Civil Aviation Authority, the UK Space Agency and the Health and Safety Executive are respected regulators in their fields, with proven track records in regulating risky activities. That is why we are drawing on their relevant regulatory expertise for this new sector. I assure the Committee that these organisations are building on their existing heritage to develop their technical and analytical capability to assess the specific risks posed by spaceflight.

Although regulating and managing the risk of spaceflight is new to the UK, other countries have many years’ experience of it. We are learning from existing spaceflight regulators in other countries and intend to enter into agreements that will include provision for the training of our personnel and the sharing of information on those activities. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that I have answered his questions and will agree to withdraw Amendment 7.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, in the interests of time, I will withdraw the amendment. However, my immediate reaction is that I am not fully comforted by what I have heard, and I expect us to come back on Report on this issue. In the meantime, it may be fruitful to engage in further discussions with the Minister to see whether we can get closer together on this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

15: Clause 11, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (2)

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I said that the previous group of amendments was probing. We had had time with the Minister to try to understand the Bill but unfortunately we did not get as far as this area. Therefore, I will not attempt to explain the amendments in this group because I do not really understand the parts of the Bill that they relate to. With that admission, perhaps I may simply put a few questions to the Minister.

I think I understand that there is the concept of strict liability towards an uninvolved third party who suffers a loss. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that—we are moving forward question by question—obviously with the necessary caveats and niceties. As I understand it, the amount of liability may be capped. To me, that means that there is a limit on how much the operator—or the Government, who might be liable—must pay in damages to an uninvolved third party in the event of an accident. I hope that I have that bit right. However, I am not clear about who pays if the losses exceed the cap. Clearly, it is not the operator—that is what a cap means. Therefore, is it the injured third party?

It is very rewarding working in the safety sector, although it means that you get a bit ridiculed. However, we are talking about a TriStar with a bomb on it crashing in the middle of Glasgow. That is not an impossible scenario. Of course, it is not very likely but the unlikely happens—that is what the statistics show. Who would meet the costs of such a catastrophe? Even if there is no cap on the operator’s liability, the commercial structure of the company means that there will be a de facto cap because the company will rapidly go out of business without one or if it is uninsured. However, there will be circumstances in which the amount exceeds the cap.

Elsewhere in the Bill, the Government seem to have the ability to meet the obligations towards the injured third party. So if the answer to my question is that the Government will meet the excess over the cap, which part of the Bill provides for that? Is it an assurance to the uninvolved in society—us and the people around Prestwick—that where there is an event, their damages will be met either by the operator or by the Government? Who will meet the excess over the cap, or is society in general exposed above the cap? I beg to move.

[Lord Fox]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for missing the first couple of words of his contribution and to the Committee for being slightly detained outside the Chamber.

Very briefly, the mission of these amendments, in the event that they were adopted by the Government, appears to be to create unlimited liability for the companies concerned in the pursuit of their business. Having asked a few questions of such operators, my understanding is that were they in an environment of that nature, the whole spirit of the Bill would be lost very quickly, in that no operator would undertake a risk of that level. I understand the concerns of the mover of this amendment, and the questions he has asked of the Government—who would pick up the liability?—are the right ones. However, the solution of creating unlimited liability across the board for the operator is not one that these Benches would support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Callanan]

We have seen in the speeches the different approaches that noble Lords wish the Government to take to cap liabilities. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, it is to remove the provision.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The purpose of the amendments was to bring out precisely, in simple words, what the Government want to do. I am not hostile to a cap or to some government help, but I want to be clear what the Bill means. If I do not like what I have heard, we will come back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The Minister went into exactly the sort of detail we were looking for. I stress that I am not hostile to the concept of a cap, but I will reduce this to very simple terms. If I were to suffer—no, I am nowhere near that rich. If Glasgow suffers an event that substantially exceeds the cap, can it reasonably expect that the excess above the cap will be met by the Government?

[Lord Callanan]

There is no simple answer to that question. It would depend on the conditions of the licence issued for the particular activity and whether any cap was imposed on that activity at the time. We are looking at every launch activity, and every application will be considered on an individual basis.

To go back to the comment made by my noble friend Lord Willetts, as I said, we are in listening mode. I am aware that this is a controversial subject. He will understand the discussions taking place between different government departments on this issue. I will say more on it as soon as I can, but I take on board the concerns raised by many people and those of industry, which have been expressed to me personally and by many noble Lords this afternoon. If it is helpful, let me say that the Government intend to exercise their power under Clause 11 to cap an operator’s indemnity to the UK Government in licence conditions for the activities of procuring the launch of a space object and the operation of a satellite in orbit, as this is currently the policy for activities licensed under the Outer Space Act.

As I said, I am listening to people on this. I will say more as soon as I am able to. I am aware of the concerns. We are in listening mode and we will reflect on the comments made. In the light of that, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Is the noble Lord likely to be able to shed light on this issue before Report?

[Lord Callanan]

If I possibly can, I will.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I hope noble Lords will agree that this exchange was worth while, because we have the record, which we can all examine. The needs or rights of the uninvolved third party in the circumstances of a very large catastrophe are still unclear as a result of that exchange. Perhaps we will have some conversations about that issue before Report. Otherwise, we may feel the need to table an amendment, because it seems reasonable for a citizen to expect, with appropriate caveats, that where the Government have allowed an operator to enjoy special rights of limitation—I can see exactly the reasons for that; it happened in aviation at the peak of the terrorist events, for example, so it is perfectly sensible—the Government would be the insurer of last resort. We may well come back to that point.

In the meantime, I thank the Government and all those involved in the debate because the record will clarify what is very difficult to understand from the Bill. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I too would like to own up to trying to find some way of squirrelling drones into this debate and this Bill, but I gave up on the early assurance from the Minister that he was doing all that he possibly could. However, on rereading his letter today, I find that there is some confusion in my mind between a registration scheme relating to mandatory competence testing, and so on, and a more powerful scheme that might set up some technological devices to achieve the objective of separating drones from air traffic and be clearer about how it will be enforced. I should be very grateful if he could flesh out some of the ideas in his letter.

Also in the Minister’s letter—although I realise that this matter is only tenuously in front of us—was a paragraph on the misuse of lasers. He pointed out that there was a clause in the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, which fell when Parliament prorogued, and he produced certain assurances about the issue and about how pilots and the wider public might be protected. I would be grateful if he would accept the indulgence of the House for him to repeat the assurances that he provides in that letter about addressing the issue of lasers at an early date.

[Lord Callanan]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, which allows me to explain at length another aspect of my ministerial responsibilities—the thorny issue of drones. I accept that raising it in the passage of this Bill is a way in which to put it on the record, which we intend to do, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Balfe, at least in part. I realise that their concerns go further than the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, mentioned in his intervention.

The safe use of drones in the UK is vital if we are to realise the full potential that they can deliver. I assure noble Lords from the outset that that is exactly what the Government want, and exactly why we recently responded to our consultation setting out a number of measures that we intend to implement. The UK is at the forefront of an exciting and growing global drones market. We are seeing drones used across many sectors, improving services, increasing efficiency, creating high-tech jobs and boosting our economy. But while aiming to make the UK a global market leader in the drone economy, we must ensure that drones are used safely and in accordance with security and privacy rules. I am well aware of the July Airprox incident at Gatwick reported in the press over the weekend. No one wants to see incidents such as those occurring, which is why we intend to bring forward legislation to strengthen regulation and enforcement for drones.

To reply to my noble friends directly, we are exploring both primary and secondary legislation options and hope to bring legislation forward as soon as possible next year, including an amendment to the Air Navigation Order 2016. My noble friend Lord Balfe asked what measures we were introducing. As set out in our July consultation response, all users of drones that weigh 250 grams or more will be required to register themselves, which will encourage drone users to be more responsible and make it easier to identify drones that are breaking the law. Users will then be required to pass at minimum a short knowledge test to prove their awareness of UK law to ensure that they understand safety, security and privacy regulations. We are also looking to mandate the use of a safety app, an example of which is the NATS app Drone Assist, to notify plans to fly a drone and make users aware of local flight restrictions and ground hazards.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

The Minister’s answer so far implies that there is no risk from drones weighing less than 250 grams. What tests and evidence does he have to assure us that that is true?

[Lord Callanan]

We did extensive safety tests in conjunction with BALPA, and released a detailed report on the size of drones and damage that they could cause to aircraft—both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. We considered that 250 grams was a reasonable threshold to impose at the time.

We are considering a possible restriction on all drones flying within a certain distance of airports and above 400 feet, and whether to increase penalties for breaking the rules. That includes whether and how spaceports could be included in any restrictions that we may implement. Furthermore, we are working towards implementing a product standard for electronic identification of drones at EU and international level. We strongly support EASA’s principal electronic identification, but want to see the proposals simplified to all drones above 250 grams to require electronic identification rather than a complex set of conditions.

Road Traffic Accidents: Hand-held Mobile Devices

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, this is at its heart a debate about dangerous driving, and it is a sobering subject. We have heard throughout the debate of cases in which people have lost their lives, or lost a loved one, because a driver was distracted through using their phone while behind the wheel. It is striking, when you hear about these families, that such devastation has been caused by a few seconds of distraction, something as trivial as a driver wanting to change the song they listen to next. It is a dreadful thing to put somebody else’s life in such great danger. Awareness needs to be raised of how dangerous it is. With that in mind, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate.

It has been more than 10 years since the Labour Government introduced the offence of using your mobile phone while driving. However, use of a mobile phone was a contributory factor in 22 fatal collisions in 2015. The police regard mobile phone use as one of the “fatal four” causes of road accidents, alongside speeding, drink-driving and not wearing a seat belt. Research by the RAC points to things getting worse rather than better. A survey taken in September found that 31% of drivers used a hand-held phone behind the wheel, up from 8% who admitted to doing so in 2014. Drivers admitted to taking photos and videos while driving, or posting on social media. A sizeable culture shift needs to happen.

Drink-driving used to be accepted as something that happened regularly. It is no longer socially acceptable. People know that it is illegal to get behind the wheel drunk or under the influence. They know why it is illegal. They consider it reckless and know that it puts other people’s lives in danger. Public awareness, education and enforcement have all worked together to reduce the number of incidents and the number of people who would ever consider drinking and driving. This is a cause to be hopeful. We know that it is possible to tackle a problem and make our roads safer because it has been done before and so can be done again.

We welcome the Government’s decision to increase the penalties for using a mobile phone while driving. Labour has been pushing the Government to act on this issue, which has been worsening in recent years on their watch. The increase from three points to six means that a driver who is caught on their phone twice will face the possibility of disqualification by the courts. Novice drivers who are caught for the first time may have to take their test again. Tougher penalties are part of the package that is needed to demonstrate the severity of the offence and the heartbreaking consequences it can have. Have the Government had discussions about applying an outright ban to those caught using their phone while driving? This is available for those driving or attempting to drive while over the alcohol limit. Is there a reason the Government settled on a six-point penalty? What is being done to educate drivers so that they are aware of the new penalties and that using a phone while driving is a serious offence?

There is a problem of the Government’s own making, which they have not yet faced up to. We have the law, education and awareness-raising, and the last part of the puzzle is enforcement. It does not matter how severe the penalty is if we rarely manage to use it. Penalties are hardly a disincentive if they are not applied when they are deserved. It remains far more of a challenge to convince people that behaviour is reckless and constitutes a serious offence if they are never pulled over for it.

In 2010, over 35,000 drivers had court proceedings instigated against them for using a mobile phone while driving. In five years of Conservative-led Government, that enforcement record fell year by year. By 2015, half the number of the drivers were being dealt with in court for this growing, life-threatening offence. The number of fixed penalty notices dropped from over 123,000 in 2011 to under 17,000 last year. Drivers are getting away with it. Mobile phone use is not picked up automatically, as speeding is currently. It takes enforcement, but this Government have cut police resources and depleted the ability of our police forces to enforce the law. Home Office figures show that local areas have lost, on average, 27% of their dedicated road police. We therefore have to ask the Government, if they are taking this offence as seriously as they claim to and as seriously as they should, what are they doing to improve these abysmal enforcement figures?

I will say a word or two about some of the previous contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, and a number of other noble Lords talked about smart systems. Those of us who have relatively modern cars have at least semi-smart systems, and there is much to commend them. However, I look to the Government to say what they are doing to advance research into smart systems to make them even more effective. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of public information films. Of course, when the Government came to power in 2010, they cut back quite radically on the use of such media. Some of the campaigns that were run in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s—not just on drink-driving but on AIDS, for example—were value for money. The Government should reconsider the use of high-quality campaigns.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours shared with us his data-gathering skills and brought home that this is a widespread offence, and considerable effort is needed to tackle it. His idea of immediate automatic checks by the police after anyone has been involved in an accident has some value, and I hope the Minister will react to that. We automatically check drivers for alcohol after an accident, and this would have a similar chilling effect. My noble friend also commended the use of technology.

It was important for us to listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, whose cautionary words on sentence escalation are important. Somehow, in our whole system, we have got it wrong. We have too much incarceration and not enough other thoughtful ways to tackle offences. He told the white line story. I am not an expert on the judicial or criminal world, but my understanding is that where sentences have been overly severe, prosecution rates have fallen because juries have been reluctant to come forward with a guilty finding. There were periods in which the death penalty, for instance, was widely available but not much used because of a sense of revulsion about excessive sentencing. We have to move from relying on very excessive sentences to looking at the whole question of how to change attitudes.

The idea of a campaign was a theme that ran through many of the contributions. The noble and learned Lord touched on that when he talked about people who kill someone in an accident being scarred and having to live with it for the rest of their life. That got to me. The one thing that came out of the drink-driving campaign that influences my driving behaviour is the thought of killing somebody and wondering how I would live with that for the rest of my life. We somehow have to embed that idea in the souls of our drivers.

I come back to a point that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. We know that the most powerful deterrent to crime is detection rates. High crime detection rates have a much bigger impact than sentencing. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, covered many of the same points. My noble friend Lord Hunt took us back once again to the 1960s. It is very clever, and I do not know how we did it, but culturally people have moved on from that period. The Government should take up his idea of a mobile use element to speeding courses. Such courses are occasions when you have a cultural handle on a driver. The driver has already made the decision to take an educational, as opposed to a punitive, route, and he is possibly in the right frame of mind to absorb that sort of information. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are doing any behavioural research as a means of tackling this problem.

Finally, we were left with a distinction between distractions and dangers. I have spent most of my life in safety-critical industries. The reality is that you always worry about proportionality, and it is something we have to build into this culture. If you are listening to a complex radio programme—“In Our Time” on a Thursday morning is a good example—and trying to manoeuvre in difficult traffic conditions, there is no question but that the act of listening affects your powers of concentration. We have to get people to think in a much more holistic way about their behaviour when they drive. This is an issue on which Members on all sides wish to see progress.

I end my remarks with a rather more hopeful question about how the Government plan to measure success in this area. What sort of monitoring will be done to gauge the effectiveness of the new penalties and the awareness campaign, and to judge what is working and what more may need to be done? Behavioural change, as we know, takes time. It is my hope that we may speed it up a bit by ensuring that drivers know that a couple of irresponsible seconds behind the wheel can cost someone’s life.

Railways: Industrial Action

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I know that my noble friend speaks from personal experience and exasperation at some of the challenges she has faced. I fully accept that many Members of your Lordships’ House are in the same position. That is why I have directly initiated, in co-operation with the Leader of the House, a regular review of some of the challenges which are directly being faced or on which representations have been made to Members of your Lordships’ House on this important issue. As I have already said, the Government have appointed Chris Gibb to look at what actions can be taken to ensure that both the train operating company and Network Rail, which operates the track, work together on finding a reasonable, fast and efficient solution.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in my career I have been a striker, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, a shop steward, an industrial relations negotiator, a line manager and a managing director. I have been through more disputes than I care to think about, and every dispute has had two sides. Is not the Minister painting a simplistic picture to say that it is just the trade unions? The Government control Network Rail and pull the strings of the train operating company; will they get in there and do something to solve this problem?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I fully respect the noble Lord’s wide experience. However, I am sure that when he reads Hansard, he will see that I have not given a simplistic solution in my replies. It is a challenging situation, and, equally, I have accepted the principle that it is not just the strikes and that other challenges are caused by problems with both Network Rail and the train operating company. There is a need to find a solution, but the strikes are not helping. That is the point I was making.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I welcome these amendments and very much welcome what my noble friend just said. I do not point at my noble friend in saying this, but I am always disappointed, given the truism about gas being the future, that we have not made more effort to make sure that, in the short term, gas is substituted for coal and that we have a far more rigorous gas industry than we have at the moment. That was the route forward, but we have been unable to put it to bed during the passage of the Energy Bill and now of the Infrastructure Bill. I hope that it is something that can at least be given greater attention after the election. However, I welcome these new clauses.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group touch on the role of the Committee on Climate Change in advising on the impact which combustion and fugitive emissions from petroleum have on the carbon budget. I understand that this was introduced in the other place as a result of a Lib Dem initiative, and we are fully supportive. We have always said that, if fracking is to take place, we would need the appropriate framework for regulation and need to consider a wider range of issues on which it will have an impact, including climate change. The Climate Change Act 2008, which was introduced by the then Labour Government, was an important piece of legislation that subsequently established the Committee on Climate Change. We therefore support the Committee’s role in advising the Government.

[Lord Teverson]

Before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, sits down, can I just point out one thing that I want to get off my chest? The Climate Change Act was a great thing that the Labour Government did, but among the amendments that they did not allow was one about excluding traded EU ETS certificates from the carbon budget. That means that the power sector is still largely excluded from the Climate Change Act and carbon budgets. It is a big hole in the system and it is regrettable that those changes were never made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I thank my noble friend, but a significant amount will still be LNG and I do not think that undermines my point. I know that my noble friend Lord Truscott has lots of experience, but I must admit that I was surprised by his analysis. Even if we are sceptical, it was a British geological survey, after all, which identified 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. If we take only 10% of that as capable of being extracted, which is a reasonably modest assessment, that is something like 40 years’ supply of the gas that we use—and we are being invited to say that we should not even consider using it.

My noble friend suggested that it was all about the current price of oil and gas. Of course we should take that into account, but as he was invited to say, is he seriously thinking that companies will invest in shale exploration without any prospect of return? I talked to companies recently about this and said, “Aren’t you deterred by the current price?”. They said no, because they do not invest at today’s prices. They are talking about a plan that is likely to take five years. I do hope that the House will support the government amendment.

On protecting groundwater, of course we should be doing that. Again, I have looked at this carefully. Apart from the fact that there has been very little evidence of methane contamination from fracking, we are talking about a six-inch pipe being drilled down. When it goes through the aquifer, which is at approximately 300 to 400 feet, multiple layers of steel and concrete contain the gas on its way to the surface and prevent it escaping into surrounding rock and groundwater.

What about the myth about the chemicals? We should remind ourselves that 99.95% is just sand and water and that the 0.05% consists only of approved non-hazardous chemicals, one of which is polyacrylamide, which is used for contact lens solution. We would be unlikely to use that chemical for a solution like that if we thought that it was seriously hazardous.

I am just as concerned about the environment and the water supply as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, but I am also concerned about those who, frankly in my opinion, misapply science and deliberately distort data rather than convey to the public the facts and the independent assessment, which is what this House should be doing. On those grounds, I hope that this House will overwhelmingly support the government amendments.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I set out the Labour Party’s position on this group of amendments, because what I hear is a gathering debate on the merits of fracking and I have no intention whatever of referring to that.

The essence of our position is to explore the difference between Amendment 21 and the other amendments in the group and to try to persuade the Government that their amendment may require fine tuning. However, we will not seek to divide the House on our amendment and we will not support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

On Monday 26 January, the Government accepted a Labour amendment to the Infrastructure Bill to overhaul the regulations for shale gas. This was a huge U-turn by the Government and a big victory for the protection of Britain’s environment. Labour has always said that shale gas extraction cannot go ahead unless there is a system of robust regulation and comprehensive inspection, but David Cameron has repeatedly ignored people’s genuine and legitimate environmental concerns over shale gas. Now, thanks to Labour’s amendment, the Government have been forced to accept that tough protections and proper safeguards must be in place before fracking can go ahead. I must make it clear that we are very pleased about the Government’s U-turn and think that it is in the best interests of the nation and the environment.

On Thursday 5 February, the Government tabled their own redrafted version of the amendment that is before the House today. Our position remains as it has been for three years: namely, that regulatory gaps need to be filled to ensure the right conditions are in place before any drilling to explore or extract unconventional gas is permitted. The Government’s amendment accepts a number of the regulatory safeguards that we proposed, which we welcome. However, it also excludes protections that were agreed to in the other place, most notably on the monitoring of fugitive emissions, notification of residents affected by fracking, and safeguards for protected areas and groundwater source areas. I must make it clear to the House that if the Government’s amendment is passed today, it will be challenged, if necessary, in the other place. Therefore, we will listen to the Minister’s response with great care, and it will be considered with great care by colleagues in the other place.

While the Government have said that their version of the Labour amendment redrafts, but does not substantially alter, its terms, I have a number of concerns. The original Labour amendment referred to fugitive emissions. The government version limits this to fugitive methane emissions. Does the Minister recognise that there will be other emissions arising from shale extraction, including CO₂? Why have they not included this in the scope of their amendment?

The original Labour amendment referred to mandatory environmental impact assessments. The government version refers only to the environmental impact, stopping short of a full EIA. Will the Government explain their rationale for this? What, in the eyes of the Minister, is the practical difference between a full EIA and the requirements of this proposed new clause?

The original Labour amendment referred to no fracking within or under protected areas. The government version refers to that only within protected areas. Does the Minister accept that this could still lead to hydraulic fracturing underneath national parks and other areas?

The original Labour amendment referred to a prohibition on developments inside groundwater protection zones. A definition of groundwater protection zones is already given by the Environment Agency, yet the government version refers to protected groundwater areas and suggests that these should be defined in a future statutory instrument. Why are the Government not using the existing definition?

The original Labour amendment required that residents should be notified individually. This is not required in the government amendment. The Minister has already set out some of the reasons for not accepting this requirement. It seems to me that she should go further in explaining why this requirement cannot be met. I believe that the requirement for individual notification exists in other legislation and that the practicality of the absolute concept which she used in her argument is overcome in other legislation. We certainly want to make sure that residents are fully informed and that there is a high probability of all individuals affected being informed.

I repeat that we will not divide the House on our amendment or support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

Drones: Code of Conduct

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for tabling this debate. I wish that more noble Lords had taken part to discuss this important issue. I also thank the Library for its extremely useful briefing note. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has said, but at the beginning I must state categorically that we on these Benches believe that unmanned aerial vehicles are a good thing, particularly in the military environment, and that by a “good thing” we mean that we believe that their value-added exceeds their risks. We agree with the noble Lord that appropriate controls over their use are essential.

In essence, the noble Lord’s question is this: do we need a code of conduct, along with regulations for the manufacture of and the operation of drones, and should these be international? I shall touch as quickly as I can on three areas, the first of which is safety. The operation of drones in UK airspace raises three areas of concern: collision; what we might call “terrain strike”, where drones fly into buildings and so on; and the possibility of technical catastrophe. Noble Lords will know that their computers are of a generation that is more adolescent than mature: that is, they are brilliant but they fail frequently. All these possibilities generate risk in the air environment, and any code of conduct or process of operation in UK airspace must cover all these risks. The risks are a particularly difficult regulatory challenge because drones do not have an established position in UK airspace at the moment, and therefore safety could be assured by simply denying them access. That makes it even more important that we understand the value that drones provide, the risks that they present, and that there are appropriate procedures to mitigate those risks.

What is the value of UAVs? The answer can be divided into two parts, the first of which is what I would call observation, and the other is the military delivery of lethal force. Observation can be secured by manned platforms: helicopters and fixed-wing aeroplanes. What is special about the drone in this observational area and what are the new challenges? I contend that the potential for drones to be both cheap and small introduces a new series of challenges for society as a whole. Because drones are potentially cheap and small, they have the potential to be both numerous and covert. The military use of drones for observation and reconnaissance is unexceptionable. Armies, navies and air forces throughout history have used all reasonable methods to secure information about their enemies, and I believe that drones are but part of that suite of capability. I do not believe that the military use of drones in the observation and reconnaissance role is particularly contentious.

However, in the non-military role, the potential for problems emerges, and we should address it. The non-military role divides into two: the state and the private sector. In the state sector, there is the potential for observational roles for the security services, the police and some other services. As the briefing note points out, we have some legal protections in the police and perhaps some in the security services, but by no means are they comprehensive, so one of the areas that has to be addressed is that of the whole suite of law covering operations that the state must obey in the use of this new technology.

In the private use of drones, one can certainly see the potential for them developing the inspection of hazardous environments and so on, but the area of most concern to me is that of intrusion. The fact that it is probably technologically feasible within a relatively small number of years to have an affordable drone the size of an apple that has a high-resolution camera in it means that there is a whole new potential for intrusion in the private environment. We know that our present laws are ineffective on intrusion by the press, and we are at the moment agonising over that with respect to Leveson. Surely, this new area must be included in those concerns to make sure that the whole issue of privacy is considered when developing the codes of conduct for these things.

The final and most contentious area is the use of drones for the delivery of lethal force. They are very effective in this role in uncontested airspace. They are able to deliver force with great precision and are therefore better than many other weapons that have defended us in the past: they are not indiscriminate like cluster bombs, mines or even modern artillery. They have the ability to loiter and be persistent, which allows for high precision, smaller munitions and the potential for less collateral damage. They also eliminate operator exposure.

The regime for their use essentially uses the manned platform regime, which involves military advisers in all aspects, including targeting and compliance with international law; there is a human decision-maker. As far as we know, society is not contemplating autonomous use. All those things are there. However, it is this very precision that causes us to think about the drone and that brings home to us that it is about damaging the enemy and killing them. Very usefully, the pack refers us back to Robert E Lee’s statement:

“It is well that war is so terrible—otherwise we would grow too fond of it”.

If war has no risk to the aggressor, how do we ensure that we do not become too fond of it? We must retain the horror of war itself. As the note points out, it is the remote warrior that is at the centre of this whole dilemma. The retention of the remote warrior as the stepping stone, the filter, and the way in which the state’s use of lethal force is used is absolutely crucial. We certainly, as I have said, see no movement towards autonomous use.

We need codes for the use of drones and the use of lethal force, which need to be bigger and probably more effective than those we have now. They should be developed through a transparent process, even in respect of military use, so that society knows how lethal force is being delivered and that appropriate, politically accountable systems ensure that this frightening delivery of lethal force by our remote warrior is properly controlled. We agree that there is a need to look at new controls and that, where possible, these should be developed internationally. We believe that they should pass the test of the public having confidence that the operation of drones in UK airspace will be safe, that their use in non-military applications will preserve our privacy and that their military use will ensure the protection of national security and the value system of our society.

Arrangement of Business

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, what is happening in the Chamber is fairly open-ended. If we adjourn, by the time the Statement and all the interventions are finished it could be quite late. A number of noble Lords wish to speak in this Committee and it could drag on and on. It might create problems for the Grand Committee in terms of the time we are able to meet. I counsel us to continue.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, perhaps I may suggest a compromise—that we proceed with the debate and adjourn when the Statement is notified.

Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

First, I apologise for saying “shipbuilding industry”, which is of course not what was intended at all; one is concerned with the shipping industry. Secondly, my noble friend is perfectly right that we are concerned with racial discrimination in pay and nothing else, which is preserved by these regulations. It is that and nothing else which Susan Carter of the external panel was considering in her careful review of stakeholder evidence on differential pay in the shipping industry, where she goes through the consequences of outlawing differential pay on five types of ship based on a Chamber of Shipping survey of its members. She looks at 229 ships and estimates what may happen about change of flag and so on. I have been quoting from her report. I submit that, being an external reviewer who has looked at all the evidence, her report should be given careful consideration. I respectfully agree with the report and wish that the Department for Transport would follow the wise and objective advice of the external panel instead of creating considerable legal uncertainty and continuing unfairness which our courts and employment tribunals may have to resolve. That may be to the benefit of my profession, but it is not in the public interest. I wish that the Government had taken the advice of their own external reviewer and I hope that these points can be considered before we come to the debate to approve the regulations.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations and other noble Lords for their thoughts. The point of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is well made. The regulations will leave an unsatisfactory piece of law on our statute book. They will regularise discrimination by nationality on British vessels. There are no two ways about that: they are designed to do so. They are designed to be compatible with European law and, for appropriate individuals, with UK law, and are designed to except those who are not in the protected group: some 12,700 overseas seamen.

Option 2 in the impact assessment simply says that it is option 1, but also makes it unlawful for employers to pay seafarers differential rates of pay on the basis of their nationality. The argument against it is made by the Chamber of Shipping, and it is the argument that the Government seem to have accepted. It goes something like this: if we make discrimination illegal, our costs will go up, so we will deflag and that will be bad for the economy.

We are not going to oppose the regulations because we think it is better to get the first bit right, which is the option in front of us, and perhaps debate later the second bit, which is whether all seamen should be involved. But I am concerned that the report by Susan Carter, from which we have had extensive quotes from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seems to have been ignored in the regulations, the memorandum and the impact statement. She makes a basic statement:

“On the basis of the evidence submitted, I recommend outlawing the practice of nationality-based pay differentials for seafarers altogether”.

So I hope that the noble Earl will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and myself on why this report was ignored before this goes in front of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

I am obliged to the noble Lord.

The aim is to apply the regulations to as many ships as possible of whatever flag, in so far as this is consistent with international law, to limit the effects being felt by the UK flag alone. The extension of the application of Part 5 to EEA ships is therefore limited to those protected characteristics which are underpinned by EU law. A ship flagged to EEA states would be under the same obligations. The characteristic of marriage and civil partnership is not an EU obligation and so is excluded.

My noble friend Lord Higgins made several important points. I accept his points about the importance of the UK register, and I hope that that came out in my comments. On the effect on the UK flag, leaving aside the issue of differential pay for the moment, the effect of applying the new consolidated equality legislation to work on ships is not very burdensome. Indeed, it should bring benefits through greater clarity for employers and employees.

As to the effect caused by the need to change the law in respect of seafarers’ pay, we cannot say with absolute certainty what the effect will be on the UK-flagged fleet, although many noble Lords have suggested what it could be. We have consulted closely with all sides of the shipping industry on the likely effect and will monitor it closely. We are regulating in a way that will be least disruptive to the industry while allowing it to comply with EU law. We are also seeking undertakings from the European Commission that it will be vigilant in ensuring that other EU member states are also following EU law.

My noble friend Lord Higgins asked me about the review provided for in the regulations, and asked whether we would review earlier. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we will keep the implementation and the situation under close observation.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan asked me why the regulations did not appear to apply to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has been asked to introduce its own parallel legislation at the earliest opportunity. Until that legislation is also approved, the UK will remain in breach of EU law. The European Commission has been informed that action in Northern Ireland was necessarily delayed due to recent elections, but that the matter is in hand. My noble friend also asked me a rather detailed question about the definition of “sufficiently close link”. It is a basket of measures as set out in Regulation 2(2)(b). It will be determined by reference to all relevant factors including those set out in the regulations.

Noble Lords asked me particularly about the Carter report. I agree that it is a significant report. Susan Carter reviewed all of the evidence submitted by stakeholders and came to the conclusion that she did. She was not asked to consider any other evidence, such as that from government. Maybe Susan Carter’s report was a comment on the industry’s evidence to maintain the status quo. As I have already indicated, my honourable friend Mr Penning, the Shipping Minister, has consulted extensively.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. The wider issues are indeed complex. As indicated, I will write to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

Will the noble Earl write specifically on the consideration that the department has given to Susan Carter’s report and say why it does not share her conclusion? He seems to give a partial explanation which I do not think is valid. Susan Carter consulted as widely for her report as the department has for the regulations.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

While the noble Earl is dealing with that, I should add that Ms Carter states at the beginning of her report:

“This report reviews evidence submitted by key stakeholders in the shipping industry about differential pay for seafarers on grounds of nationality. The Department for Transport invited them to submit financial estimates of the likely impact of either: option A … or option B”.

That the department did not give evidence is, with respect, not the point; the point is that the department asked her to do this job on the basis of evidence submitted by—that ghastly phrase—“key stakeholders”. Therefore, I am mystified as to how anyone reading her report could fault her findings or her conclusion. I would be very grateful if the Minister would write to us about that as well.

Railways: Public Procurement

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for indulging my short absence. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for introducing this debate and for sharing with me the paper from her transport forum. It reminded me of a paper that I had written some seven years ago, after 12 years’ experience of procuring goods and services for the public. I was procuring at the rate of something like £0.5 billion worth a year and I set down in a paper—it was literally only 22 lines long, so it was not a great seller—what I thought I had learnt from those 12 years. I ended up with 22 tips for contracting. I have looked at where the two papers coincided.

I take my first two points:

“Know what your objectives are”,

and, “Understand your suppliers’ objectives”. The essence of making a good contract is to think first of why you are doing it. You are doing it not for the Government but for the citizens, either singly or in groups, so you must know what you want and what that service is. You must have mutually compatible objectives and you really need measurable objectives. You do not want indulgences such as, “Let’s have innovation”, or all those fancy words. Get your objectives right first and understand your suppliers’ objectives so that they know whether those are possible.

I come now to contracts, which were at 11 and 12 on my list. I wrote,

“Contracts beyond their foreseen limits become progressively valueless”,

and, at point 12, “You cannot subcontract responsibility”. Because of those two facts, the idea that you can take contracts, litigate them and bring the behaviour of your contractor into line is pretty thin. My experience is that once you have a contract so far out of line that you cannot do business with your contractor, it is useless to try and litigate it and that, because you cannot subcontract your responsibility to operate the service, you are forced into a deadly embrace with your contractor. Much better than depending on tight contracts with penalty clauses is to have win-win contracts. In a good win-win contract, when a contractor’s manager thinks about making a decision to maximise the profit for his employer, he should be thinking, “That same action will maximise the benefit to the citizen”. Contracts that have those win-win characteristics are the only ones that really work over time, so win-win contracts with good mutual alignment are best.

My points 15 and 16 were:

“Risk migrates to the party of substance”,

and,

“Risk transfer should be appropriate”.

This idea that you can somehow subcontract risk to the private sector is unreal. When things go wrong, the risk will come back to the state. The reason that the state provides this service in the first place is that it has to be provided and the state cannot back out. You can only transfer to your contractor the risks that he can manage. You should not try to transfer risks that he cannot manage because, if you do, your contractor will then be a gambler. If he is lucky, he will make a fortune but, if he is unlucky, you will pick up the pain. We should remember that the private sector is risk-averse.

Point 21 on my list is that the private sector is good at focus and continuous improvement. Therefore, I allowed the private sector an important role here. However, as I wrote carefully on my piece of paper as point 22, the private sector becomes increasingly dysfunctional in loss-making situations or, as I said in discussions with colleagues at the time, the private sector runs around like a headless chicken. If your supplier is not making profits, all the nice things that he said in the contract and during the negotiations—all the cuddly and furry bits round the edge of what he promised to do—will evaporate. Private sector companies cannot survive without making a profit, so it is in your interests to make sure that you think through how they are going to provide the service and make a profit.

The one area in the report which I missed out but which I think is very valid is transparency. I certainly believe that we have had too much talk of commercial confidentiality over the years and that far more openness and open-book policies in contracting would benefit both sides so that all parties, including citizens’ representatives and the citizens themselves, could see what was happening on their behalf. Therefore, I strongly support the idea of far more transparency, including during the contracting and bidding periods.

Returning to the question of the railway contracts, I ask the Minister, first, whether we have clear criteria by which future franchise renewals will be judged. Do we have criteria by which to create the invitation to tender? Are those criteria written down? If so, where are they and, if not, will they be written down?

Secondly, do the Government understand the importance of win-win contracts as the only contracts that really work over time? Finally, do the Minister and the Government understand the whole issue of risk transfer and how it must be appropriate so that the public and the state do not become the losers?