Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

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

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 1

“would require the Secretary of State to exercise functions in respect of airspace change proposals under this Bill in accordance with the Secretary of State’s general duty in respect of air traffic services provided for by the Transport Act 2000.”

Amendment 10 is complementary to this amendment.

Amendment 2 would ensure that

“the Secretary of State must, before making a direction requiring a person to progress an airspace change, consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that the direction is necessary to deliver the CAA’s airspace strategy and is reasonably practicable to comply with.”

Amendment 5 would ensure that, before making direction requiring a person to co-operate in an air- space change, the Secretary of State must consider representations from persons involved in airspace change and be satisfied that it is reasonably practical for the recipient of the direction to comply with it.

Amendment 8 would align the test for the variation of the direction with that applicable to making a direction. Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to publish reasons for any direction to progress or co-operate in an airspace change proposal or variations or revocations of such direction made under this part. Amendment 11 would make the Secretary of State responsible for the implementation of the CAA’s airspace strategy and related reports.

Amendment 13 concerns the report on general aviation. General aviation—this was the case in my day, which is now some decades ago, but I think it still persists—particularly light general aviation, is essentially where all our airline pilots are initially trained; that is how they come into the profession and so on. It is important that it is properly facilitated with respect to airspace changes and development. Fortunately, from conversations with the Minister, I believe that she shares that view, and I hope that, in her response, she will set out the Government’s support for general aviation and how its interests will be taken account of in the developing airspace debate. Hopefully, this will leave general aviation properly provided for and, almost as important, feeling that it has been properly consulted in the development.

In summary, this group of amendments seeks to clarify the role of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has a role that is related to the CAA in various processes. It is not entirely clear who is in charge. The Bill as written gives the Secretary of State and the CAA the powers to achieve airspace change, but it is not clear who is actually responsible for getting it done. I would like to hear from the Minister that it is clear that the achievement of improvements and a new airspace capability is down to the Secretary of State, answerable to Parliament, and that his relationship with the CAA may be a partnership but he is the person in the partnership who is held accountable for execution and success.

The rest of the amendments are about requiring appropriate relationships between the parties and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support the Bill, but I must use this opportunity to say that it is a bit of a mess. That is not surprising, because it has such a long history: the Bill itself is the result of attempts over several years to get legislation of this nature, and of course we had the Committee stage over a year ago.

Since then, there has been a dramatic reversal in the fortunes of the aviation industry—one that we would never have foreseen at the time when we spoke about this last. The impact of coronavirus has undermined all branches of aviation. In addition, of course, since we last spoke we have left the transition period following Brexit, but we are still at the point where we have to adhere to international norms and regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

I move Amendment 3 and I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 3 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts. Amendment 4 would empower the Secretary of State to provide that a person who is directed to progress an airspace change is fairly compensated for doing so, and that the compensation can be recovered from another person involved in airspace change where appropriate. Amendment 6 would empower the Secretary of State to require a person involved in airspace change to compensate another person who had been directed to progress an airspace change. Amendment 7 would allow compensation for adverse financial impacts.

One of the problems of getting organisations to co-operate is that some parties are unwilling to do so and they will use the financial impact on them as their excuse, particularly if one party is required to co-ordinate the activity and invest considerable work but is not likely to gain financially from the changes it is developing. Then it will be reluctant to move. Efforts to improve airflow planning over south-east England have been going on for at least a decade. It is important that, if it is a matter of financial limitations, the Bill allows appropriate mechanisms for money to flow between parties and perhaps from government.

This is important between big players, such as the airports and NATS. It is also important in the case of small airports or airfields on the periphery of the controlled airspace, where small changes may have significant adverse effects on them and they are not equipped—particularly financially—to mount a proper representation to have their voices heard without some recognition of the financial burden on them. Clearly, the movement of monies between the parties as allowed for in this group of amendments may not be necessary, but since we are creating a Bill to address all eventualities in the development of modern airspace it is important at this stage to make sure that there are facilities for money to move about and, in extremis, for government perhaps to finance parts of that development. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, our airspace modernisation is a complex but necessary process. It is necessary in the modern world because it enables environmental gains in an industry increasingly under fire for its emissions and where the technological solutions are much more long term than they are in the case of, for example, road vehicles. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has just pointed out, one person’s gain is often another person’s loss. These are useful amendments because there is a real fear of a potential conflict between airports as the modernisation process goes forward.

In Committee, I mentioned that Stansted and Luton airports, for example, are very close geographically. It is not impossible to imagine that what would help Stansted might deprive Luton; for example, a potential airspace route that would cost it money in terms of potential for new services. Since the Committee stage, airports have found themselves in great financial difficulty because of travel restrictions. These amendments are therefore designed to ensure what I assume is an even-handed approach from the Secretary of State down through the CAA and the Airspace Change Organising Group.

The Airport Operators Association remains concerned about the funding of this issue—I raised that in the last group and was delighted to hear that the Minister has agreed to deal with it in her response here. When this matter was raised previously by the Airport Operators Association, the Aviation Minister suggested three sources of funding in a situation where one airport was going to win at the expense of another. The first suggestion was that alternative sponsors might pay. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain exactly what is intended with that proposal.

The second suggestion from the Aviation Minister was that funding might come from the £10-million airspace modernisation fund. That sounds fine but it is actually a relatively small sum so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain whether that is a fixed sum or extra funding would potentially be available.

Thirdly, there was a suggestion of government funding on a case-by-case basis. If the Government have any further thoughts on this, it would be really good to hear them at this stage. I hope that the Minister can put the Government’s intentions on record today to clarify these issues.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is to enable compensation for the recipient of a direction if the airspace change is predominantly or wholly for the benefit of a third party and if issuing a direction would lead to adverse financial impacts. Amendments 3 and 7 would also allow the Secretary of State to recover the cost of the compensation from the third party.

It is important for me to be clear up front that, while we recognise the severe impact that Covid-19 is having on the aviation sector, the “user pays” policy principle is an important one: those who stand to benefit from airspace change should pay for the costs of such a change. In the light of the pandemic and its effects on the aviation industry, most airports have paused their work on airspace change. However, airspace modernisation remains critical to deliver additional capacity and improve access to airspace for different users; it also brings environmental benefits by reducing emissions.

Therefore, the Government have asked the Airspace Change Organising Group—ACOG—to revisit the master plan for airspace change in this light to ensure that the benefits of the programme are realised and that the investment already made is not lost. In July last year, ACOG published a report on remobilising airspace change. It included 10 recommendations aiming to ensure that the programme advances, while recognising the financial pressures faced by airports and the industry.

The DfT and the CAA immediately accepted recommendations 1, 2 and 4. First, we will ask ACOG to establish clear protocols for the airports that are able to resume work on airspace change, how we engage with those where work has paused and the exit process for those that decide to opt out of the programme, subject to their criticality to the programme as a whole. Secondly, we will ask NERL and ACOG to work together to re-evaluate NERL’s 2018 feasibility report into airspace modernisation to identify the core set of airport-led airspace changes that will be required in the post-Covid world. Lastly, in the short term, the CAA will work with ACOG to ensure that work on airspace change that can still progress does not conflict with or constrain the broader programme.

Officials continue to work closely with the CAA to consider the remaining seven recommendations. One of these includes funding to tackle the short-term airspace change proposal—ACP—funding gaps potentially created by Covid-19. In the light of the pandemic, we recognise that the timescales in which airspace modernisation will take place will necessarily change. ACOG therefore plans to develop the future iteration of the airspace modernisation master plan in 2021.

The powers in the Bill are tied to the airspace modernisation strategy—the AMS—and the master plan. The Secretary of State could make a direction only to persons involved in airspace change based on this strategy. Therefore, it follows that there are no plans to use these powers in the near future while the industry recovers from the pandemic. As I have said, the need to modernise the UK’s airspace has not changed. We will need these powers in future once the master plan has been developed and the modernisation programme has been restarted to ensure that the strategy can be implemented in the years to come.

The Government recognise that there may be occasions when a small airport, or another person involved in airspace change, may require financial assistance to carry out some aspects of an ACP. We expect the CAA’s oversight team to work with the potential sponsor before recommending that the Secretary of State uses the powers to direct an ACP. At this early stage, if the potential sponsor expressed concerns that it did not have sufficient funding to proceed with a particular ACP, we would expect the oversight team to work with the potential sponsor to suggest alternative solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, NATS and the CAA for their very constructive engagement on this issue, which has resulted in these government amendments. In moving Amendment 12 I will speak also to Amendment 21.

Amendment 12 seeks to amend Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000 to give the CAA greater flexibility to consider representations about an alleged or apprehended contravention—or a complaint—and to ensure that resources are used effectively. Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000 currently places an obligation on the CAA to investigate a complaint if the representation is made by—or on behalf of—a person who appears to have an interest. While this obligation does not apply if the representation appears to the CAA to be frivolous or vexatious, in practice this section as currently worded gives the CAA little discretion not to commence formal investigations. As a result, the licence holder and CAA may be presented with a considerable burden when engaging with an investigation which could potentially have serious resource implications, even where the CAA then decides not to take further enforcement action.

Amendment 12 will provide clarity and flexibility for the CAA and stakeholders as to when investigations should be commenced. This will reduce the potential for unnecessary investigations which have no material effect—or which result in no enforcement action being taken—without watering down the CAA’s powers, or the ability of parties to raise a complaint. The CAA will publish updated enforcement guidance, which can refer to the application of Section 34.

Amendment 21 is a minor, consequential amendment. The Bill already makes a consequential amendment to Section 34 of the Transport Act 2000. That provision would have changed the current reference in Section 34 from “condition of a licence” to “licence condition”. As Section 34 is being amended more substantively, that consequential amendment is no longer required.

I turn briefly to Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I am grateful to the noble Lord for engaging with this. Amendment 19 seeks to ensure that the CAA would impose penalties on the licence holder, NERL, only where the contravention of the licence or Section 8 duty is serious, and it was deemed proportionate to do so. Following extensive engagement with NERL and detailed consideration, the Government are of the view that this amendment is not necessary. There are already sufficient legal checks and balances contained in the Bill, as well as through policy and guidance, to prevent disproportionate fines being levied on a licence holder.

The proposed amendment would also depart from the approach taken in the equivalent provision in the Civil Aviation Act 2012, meaning that the threshold for imposing a penalty relating to NERL would be higher than that for an airport’s economic licence. This would create a disparity in CAA enforcement across the sector. I do, however, appreciate the importance of considering the seriousness of the contravention, along with the proportionality of imposing a fine, and I will take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords of what provision has already been made.

First, the power of the CAA to impose a penalty is discretionary, and it would do so only for the most serious contraventions or as a matter of last resort. All regulators, including the CAA, are already required to consider the better regulation agenda—as well as the Macrory principles of better enforcement—in exercising their regulatory and enforcement functions. The Macrory principles explicitly state that enforcement must be proportionate to the nature of the offence and to the harm caused. In practice, proportionality will be considered at every stage of a stepped process to enforcement, which will be set out in the CAA’s enforcement guidance and statement of policy on penalties. The CAA is required to consult relevant stakeholders on the latter. The CAA will decide whether to impose a penalty, and the level of penalty, by assessing the seriousness and harm caused to users by the contravention, through the lens of its statutory duties under the Transport Act 2000.

If the CAA were to propose a penalty on the licence holder, the Bill contains procedural safeguards, in the form of consultation with the licence holder, before the penalty could be imposed. This would give the licence holder the opportunity to highlight the steps it is taking to mitigate the contravention. The CAA would consider all stakeholder representations ahead of imposing a penalty. If the licence holder were to disagree with an imposed penalty, they could appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which would have to have regard to the financeability duty imposed on the CAA under Section 2 of the Transport Act 2000. This approach is broadly aligned with equivalent provisions in the Civil Aviation Act 2012. The Government’s decision to modernise the air traffic licensing regime recognised that appropriate alignment with similar regulatory regimes would provide stakeholders with greater clarity and certainty and assist the CAA in exercising its regulatory functions and statutory duties in a more effective manner.

Turning to Amendment 20, I think we are agreed that the CAA should have a discretionary power to investigate complaints under Section 34, as set out in Amendment 12. It would therefore be inconsistent to narrow the power for the CAA to obtain information in relation to Section 34. I beg to move.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, these amendments relate to the CAA’s function to investigate complaints over breaches of licence conditions. Since the CAA has considerable powers, any limitation of those powers needs to be carefully balanced. There are concerns within various parts of the aviation industry about how the dual role of the CAA effectively operates in relation to these issues.

I regret that I am speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, because I want to listen carefully to the thoughts behind his amendments. It is important to fully understand the purpose of Amendment 20 in narrowing the power to obtain information. I believe it is in the spirit of the other limitations within this group of amendments, which seem entirely sensible.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we fully support Amendments 12 and 21. We put forward amendments in Committee, in the light of conversations with the CAA, which we felt made some good points. We put these to the Government, who said, as Governments always do, “We don’t think much of your amendments but we agree with what you’re trying to do. Can we do it our way?” And my view is, yes, we can do it in the way they wish to draft it.

I turn to Amendment 19. In many ways, the Minister has answered the question: will the CAA behave in a responsible and proportionate way? She has basically assured us that it will, and that it is implied in general legislation.

On Amendment 20, we felt that the CAA’s powers were overly wide. I do not have a more specific reason for tabling the amendment, other than that the two concepts in Amendments 19 and 20 stood together.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand the reason behind the amendments and accept it. But I believe that we should review the role of the allocation of slots, in a holistic way that takes into account the needs of the co-ordinated airports to optimise the use of their space, gives the feeder airports the linkages they need, and gives the passengers —who, after all, are really who the airports exist for—the choice and the services that can be achieved, rather than simply subjecting them to a decision based on the bottom line. Given the dire straits that many airlines are in, it is understandable that they should think in that way, but if the Government have a role, it should be to ensure fairness and social and economic connectivity, not just the profitability of the airlines.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this is part two of a discussion that we started earlier this week on the SI on this subject, which gave the Government temporary powers. Since Committee stage, a year ago, we have had the impact of the pandemic and the EU has waived the usual 80:20 rules on slot usage. That was welcome because it avoids ghost flights—empty flights, just to keep slots.

In the amendments the Government are giving themselves powers until 2024 to continue to waive the rules altogether or to vary them, possibly by varying the percentages. That is a whole new issue to have entered the Bill—something that was simply not there a year ago. I wondered about the 2024 date and whether the period was a tad lengthy but time and time again in this pandemic, things have taken much longer to play out than we thought they would. On reflection, 2024 seems to allow a reasonable period ahead to give a level of certainty.

Because we did not have these substantial amendments prior to Report today, however, I have some questions for the Minister. First, Amendment 12A involves temporary powers to make regulations about slot allocation. Paragraph 4(d) of the new article it inserts would allow the co-ordinator to “withdraw slots” from a carrier where it is determined that

“the air carrier has ceased its operations at the airport concerned”.

My question to the Minister is: how would that be determined? I have in mind a question similar to the one I asked earlier in the week about Gatwick. Virgin has announced that it will not fly from Gatwick in future and will no longer have a base there. Indeed, it no longer does have a base there—but it retains its slots. Slots are a very valuable commodity, so how is such a situation likely to be approached in future?

My second question is on the same amendment. Paragraph 2(a) refers to “a relevant previous year”, which is later defined as:

“any previous year that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for … comparing levels of … traffic.”

That is an extraordinarily broad and vague definition, as levels of traffic vary dramatically according to the make-up of carriers from specific airports—with new ones coming and going—and to their commercial decisions. It also uses the term of a year, while slot waivers work in seasons to reflect the patterns of demand, which vary from season to season. Can the Minister confirm that the year as a whole will be the point of comparison?

Another point that I raised in our debate earlier this week is that the number of available slots currently greatly outweighs the capacity of the airlines to fill them, because as the pandemic has progressed they have greatly reduced their staff and the number of planes that they own or rent. How do the Government intend to approach this problem, whereby the number of slots cannot be filled by the current capacity of airlines?

Slot hoarding has to be tackled. The 80:20 rule is designed to maintain the competitiveness of the industry, which means fair ticket prices for passengers. If the waiver is exploited it will be bad for new entrants to the market, bad for passengers, and bad for airports. The powers or conditions that the Government have included here, therefore, and the potential to vary the 80:20 ratio, seem a sensible and welcome approach to the situation that we face, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanations.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we generally support these four amendments, and we thank the Minister for tabling them for our examination. Nevertheless, one must recognise that the dilemma brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his contribution, is a real one. It is important to see these amendments as quite separate from the general problem. Can the Minister tell the House what examination of this problem the Government expect to conduct in the future?

I know from my own experience, which goes back to the 1980s, that slot allocation is a very difficult and challenging problem in the airline industry. One of the problems in life is that when there are many parties to finding an overall solution to the distribution of a scarce resource the solutions you get become very difficult to change: creating a level of change that would address the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would be in the best “Yes Minister” category—very brave. I hope, nevertheless, that the Minister can lay out some of the plans for addressing this issue.

On the amendments as a whole, I have a few questions. The Minister may have answered them—I was slightly distracted, so I hope the House will forgive me if we go over old ground.

First, my understanding is that each season’s solution, under these amendments, will be subject to an affirmative order. I would value a simple assurance on that.

Secondly, the Heathrow authorities told us that in their view the agreements that were being developed through the Worldwide Airport Slot Board were more optimal than the solution we have had to adopt for the summer of 2021. Should, therefore, the parties—the airlines, airports and other stakeholders—come to a worldwide agreement on slot allocation? These things are co-ordinated on a worldwide basis. Certainly, when I was a senior executive the most important date of my year was the IATA timetable conference in October, which addressed the following summer’s slots. If the airlines and airports produce an overall solution, is there enough flexibility in this proposed solution to allow the Secretary of State—I stress allow, not require—to endorse such a comprehensive, multiagency agreement?

Finally, can the Minister assure the House—and the industry—that there will be adequate consultation with all stakeholders for each season that is managed under these amendments?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

14: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of legislation relating to unmanned aircraft, and whether it provides sufficient protection to individuals.(2) The review should make reference to, but is not limited to—(a) whether privacy legislation is sufficient to cover threats posed to personal privacy by unmanned aircraft;(b) the merits of introducing mandatory remote identification;(c) the merits of introducing mandatory geo-fencing;(d) whether criminal law sufficiently protects against—(i) the modification of unmanned aircraft; and (ii) the weaponisation of unmanned aircraft;(e) whether there should be a minimum age for the purchase and operation of unmanned aircraft, and what the appropriate age would be;(f) whether the CAA’s system for registering operators of unmanned aircraft ensures sufficient supervision for those who are under the age of 18 operating unmanned aircraft;(g) whether a licensing requirement should be introduced for unmanned aircraft above a certain weight;(h) the Government’s strategy for managing risks arising from unmanned aircraft operated from overseas.(3) The review must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation in the light of its findings.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a further review in the same terms every 12 months after the review under subsection (1).”

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 14 and give notice that I am minded to put it to a vote at the end of the debate. As I said earlier, this Bill is a bit of a mess—through no fault of the Minister; it is simply the passage of time, and time has definitely taken its toll. This applies in particular to the clauses on unmanned aircraft.

Since 2016, I have been urging the Government to bring forward legislation on drones. The Minister reminds us from time to time that unmanned aircraft include model aircraft, but I am concerned here solely with drones. In the five years since I first addressed this issue, drone technology has been transformed, and so has the number of drones in operation. They are of massive importance to our military, to the police and other emergency services, and to countless businesses across the UK. It is wonderful, transformative technology; it is also very worrying technology. In the wrong hands, drones carry illegal drugs, take illicit mobile phones into prisons and threaten major loss of life by interfering with flights, as we saw at Gatwick in 2019. “Wrong hands” obviously includes criminals, but also careless and untrained hands.

Since we started this Bill in 2019, EU legislation has been updated, and that is reflected in the details of the amendments here today. But they do not reflect the broader approach that is now needed. The Bill is a wasted opportunity, because it is largely a list of additional powers for the police. That approach is unsatisfactorily narrow, and my amendment outlines the broad approach that I believe needs to be taken. It needs to address the serious concerns of BALPA, the Airport Operators Association and many airlines about safety and security risks from drones. I have specified the range of issues I am worried about, but I do not believe it is an exclusive list. Some of them relate to technical advances, such as the availability of geofencing and remote ID. Others relate to possible shortcomings in criminal law in relation to the deliberate weaponisation of drones. Potential risks from overseas exist now that the technology allows longer-distance flying.

The amendment in this group in the name of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, also raises important issues about commercially used drones, which are often specialist and valuable. My amendment addresses the issue of the appropriate minimum age to be in charge of a drone. EU legislation allows a minimum age of 14, and the Government have supported this. But that is a minimum: it does not have to be that low within the EU rules, and, in any event, we have of course left the EU. Legislation allows drones to be registered to anyone over 18, but they can be flown by people younger than this, and there is no requirement for the registered owner to be present and in the line of sight of the person flying the drone. So, the question is whether this is sufficient supervision.

In preparation for this debate, I spent a long time online looking at adverts for drones, from under £100 to thousands of pounds. In all the adverts I looked at, I saw no reference at all to the rules on registration and supervision, line of sight, heights for flight and so on. Presumably, all that comes with the instructions in the box. But I am not entirely sure that everyone reads the instructions in the box carefully.

Also untouched by this Bill is the issue of privacy. There are serious concerns that drones can allow invasions of privacy. I said earlier that the Bill concentrates on police powers, but police use drones as a tool themselves, and they are a very useful tool in fighting crime. The vast majority of police forces now use drones, but there appears to be no overall dedicated guidance for police on the way in which they are to be deployed, or provision of information on how they should be used. This is a potentially controversial area, as we saw when Derbyshire police used drones at the start of the pandemic to watch walkers in the countryside, with the potential to levy fines on them.

This is a fast-developing technology, and my amendment recognises that by seeking a review of the legislation within six months, and every year thereafter, to ensure that it is, and remains, fit for purpose. I am not prescribing solutions, just outlining issues to be addressed and asking for a more comprehensive and effective approach to the whole issue of drones.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 14 and shall speak to Amendment 15, which stands in my name. It is a probing amendment and I shall not divide the House on it.

After Committee, I was informed that unmanned aircraft and drone operators holding CAA permission for commercial operation—PfCOs—were concerned about the scale of the police powers introduced by the Bill. Recent changes to the ANO 2016 affecting the use of unmanned aircraft have dispensed with PfCOs and new categories for unmanned aircraft operations are provided for all users. The concern is that use of the police powers designed principally for recreational users or potential criminal use could cause commercial operators loss of time or money, or even cause them to fail to meet a contract.

For example, a building inspection by a drone operator might involve manoeuvres putting the drone closer to the structure than would be acceptable for a hobby user. Were the police to order the immediate grounding of a drone in such a CAA-approved use or, looking to the future, of a drone with CAA operational authorisation for beyond visual sight, extended visual sight or even swarm flights, this could lead to business disruption and loss. Would the police consider a complaint from the public reasonable grounds to order grounding? Would the police authority be responsible for such a commercial loss? I expect not, but serious cases might lead to some form of claim by insurers or the operators themselves, so it is reasonable to suggest that, for flights with CAA operational authorisation, the most the police might be required to do would be to seek presentation of the CAA approval licence, as new Schedule 9 envisages. If still concerned, the police should report the operator to the CAA, which already has extensive statutory powers for investigation and sanction.

As the Minister informed me in an exchange of letters we have had about this amendment, new risk-based categories apply to all UA activities, but this does not seem to be any reason for commercial operators, however approved or risk-assessed by the CAA, to be less concerned about the difficulties they might face if the police powers were to be exercised in ways that, maybe inadvertently, were to delay or interfere with the approved use which the CAA had given to the commercial operator.

These operators are further concerned about the level of knowledge of the relevant extensive ANO and CAP 722 publications required of regional police forces to deal with unmanned aircraft operating commercially and whether their increased workload will be funded, particularly as this activity expands. No one would welcome a breach of trust between the police and commercial businesses if police involvement were to be disruptive to commercial use. In further exchanges with the Minister—I thank her for her engagement with me over these concerns—I have not been given sufficient reassurance about the way police powers in this Bill will be used so as not to lead to potentially harmful outcomes for the commercial operator.

There is considerable growth potential in the commercial use of UAs and, indeed, in the market globally for such remotely controlled devices. The Government quote an addition of £42 billion and more than 600,000 jobs by 2030. The Bill provides an opportunity to show that such commercial users are recognised and being supported by statute and regulation specifically designed to deal with, but not onerously restrict, their activities.

A further consideration is whether some statutory approved way to claim for loss, disruption or damage to the business of the commercial operator—for example, if its unmanned aircraft was incorrectly impounded by the police—should be provided. Would this too be by means of secondary legislation, as envisaged for appeals against fixed penalty fines?

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that, based on the reassurances I have given to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, she will choose to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate; it has been very interesting. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support, for signing the amendment and for his clear explanation of his position.

I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that she has not reassured me. There has been a very interesting range of views, but the Bill is just a start. My contacts with the drone industry indicate that it believes that a modern, strong legislative framework would be helpful to the industry and not a constraint. I know of several organisations that retain very serious concerns about drones and their operation in the modern world, and about their safety and the societal impact of, for example, illegal activity.

The Minister very fully outlined the Government’s approach, saying that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to have the reviews that I suggest. She referred to the ANO 2016 and the statutory review this year, which she has referred to in previous conversations. I looked at that review, but it does not have the breadth of the one that I am calling for and is not in line with the scope of the amendment that I have tabled. I am afraid that, without a commitment from the Minister to the kind of comprehensive approach that I have in mind, I feel compelled to call a vote on this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the Minister on her spirited 12-minute speech, which covered all these amendments.

In the heady days of the 1960s, I went to university for three years. Her Majesty was good enough to teach me to fly in the Royal Air Force. At university, I ran the college bar and happened to get a maths degree. It was useful training, which led me into an airline career. Running the college bar gave me first-hand experience in line management, and I am afraid that the only effect of the maths degree was to make me even more pedantic than I was naturally.

Accordingly, when the Minister was kind enough to send a letter setting out these amendments and where they were, I read it and alighted on some of the words used. She wrote to clarify that these were “largely” technical changes, saying that it is important to note that these amendments, if accepted, will not change the policy intention of the Bill and are, “in most cases”, just making minor but essential changes. Either the words are careless, and the changes are wholly technical—though I believe that there is no such thing in most cases—or some of these amendments are not technical in nature. In her response, can the Minister tell me which of these many amendments is not a technical change but has some substance? Or can she assure me that the words “largely” and “in most cases” should have been omitted from her letter and that all the changes are technical?

I ask for this assurance because we do not have the resources to work through such a large number of amendments. We made an attempt—and I commend our adviser, Ben, who worked through them. He could not find anything that was not minor and technical, but I would value the Minister enlightening me and satisfying my pedantic approach.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I have grappled with all these amendments. I wondered whether what seemed minor and technical to me might seem very significant to someone working in the industry. I thank the Minister and her officials for their thorough briefings. However, this all shines a light on the unsatisfactory situation with this Bill—a major tranche of amendments has been produced because of the time that has elapsed.

I support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. They underline the need for a much more comprehensive approach and review. Although my amendment was narrowly lost, I hope the Minister will bear in mind the points I have made and the need to look more comprehensively at this in the near future.

As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, as ever, the views of BALPA must hold great weight. It is important that safety is at the forefront of our minds, on all these issues. But because this is a diverse, complex and fast-changing subject, only people actually working in the industry are able to spot the problems when they first appear.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. I cannot see anything here which is not detailed and technical. Therefore, I have no objections to the amendments.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their short interventions on this debate. Turning first to the comments of my noble friend Lord Balfe, I will, of course, take them back to the department and consider them further.

Turning to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—I see his maths degree and I raise him an engineering degree. And I am the ultimate pedant. However, what is minor and technical to one person is not minor and technical to another; indeed, that was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. When it comes to my letter to him, where I said “in most cases” and “largely”, I think I was just trying to cover my bases. The reality is that they are minor and technical. Where they are slightly not minor and technical—perhaps a bit borderline—I tried to bring that out in my 12-minute speech, particularly where there have been changes. For example, the implementing regulation has introduced some changes from the status quo ante; it is a slightly different regime. I suppose that, although they are technical amendments to make it all match up, perhaps they may be on the large end of minor. But I reassure him that I too have found nothing that I could not describe as minor or technical and, on that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]]

I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has raised this matter, because it is of considerable concern to many people—those who enjoy areas of outstanding natural beauty and, for example, those who run the National Trust. I, too, would like to know what sanctions are available to people who own such areas of land if it becomes apparent that aircraft are not keeping to the guidance provided by the various air traffic orders.

Therefore, I intervene simply to second what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has said. I believe that the mechanisms are there, but what I really want to know is what happens if the rules are not obeyed and what can be done about it.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the raising of this fresh issue. I have had representations from residents in Shropshire about a sudden unexplained increase in aircraft noise in their area. In this case the noise was undoubtedly caused by civilian flights. People who suddenly find themselves underneath flights by the Air Force and the military often understand the need for those, but they may be more concerned about civilian commercial flights.

Even the local councillors could not find the cause. They could not discover where the flights were coming from, or why there had been a sudden increase. Was a new airline operating from a nearby airport? Were the schedules, or the destinations, different? They could not find the answer, and then along came the pandemic, and there was no longer a problem. However, that does not mean that the problem has disappeared for ever, or that it will not be back in the reasonably near future.

Even if that problem does not return in Shropshire, that would not undermine the important principle behind the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for tabling it. Areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks are subject to numerous protections in terms of planning, the natural environment, and the agriculture that can take place within them, but, as I understand it, there is no protection from aircraft noise.

The Bill threatens to make the present vulnerability of such places worse, because airports will now be required to surrender their spare airspace. There might be an airport very close to an AONB but not operating over it simply because there is no commercial incentive to use that route. But now airports are to be asked to give up their spare airspace for use by general aviation, which means that our skies will be even more crowded.

This is an interesting development, at a time when the Government are keen to burnish their environmental credentials. I recommend that they look into this and see whether they can use their new powers to deal with the problem of noise. I urge the Minister to take seriously the suggestion in the amendment that flights below 7,000 feet should be controlled, and allowed only in certain situations.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for his amendment, which, as he said, provides us with an opportunity to debate aircraft noise. I am sure that in her response, the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that. I certainly would not claim to know what all their objectives are on aircraft noise, but I do remember one, although it is unrelated to the specific issue covered in the amendment.

Following the 2017 public consultation on Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, the Government said that their objective was to

“limit or reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise at night, including through encouraging the use of quieter aircraft, while maintaining the existing benefits of night flights.”

As we are discussing aircraft noise, it might be interesting if the Minister could provide some information on the specific certifiable progress that has already been made towards achieving that stated government objective, and what specific further objectives and targets the Government have set themselves for the next three years so as to deliver on the objective to which I referred.

On the specific issue raised in this amendment, I am sure that a great many people who visit national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty have, at times, been conscious of aircraft flying low overhead. An interesting point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about all the other types of protection that already exist for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. In that context, she asked why the goal and objective set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, might not also offer a further protection, in view of how aircraft noise can, at times, diminish the enjoyment that people expect when visiting national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The amendment refers specifically to civil aircraft, but presumably there could be an issue with military aircraft in this context as well.

I support the basic objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks with his amendment. I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will set out the Government’s thinking on aircraft noise, not least on the specific circumstances covered by this amendment and the goals, objectives and targets that the Government have set in this regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, but this is my application to join the pedants’ club, which was advertised somewhat earlier.

The amendment says

“insert ‘destroy the aircraft or’”.

The clause would then read:

“The constable may destroy the aircraft or require a person to ground the aircraft”.


I thought that this was a sort of “Derbyshire Constabulary amendment”, where they go chasing round after people—a constable cannot destroy an aircraft. What would we have? Would we have Derbyshire police with a popgun? I am afraid that it just will not work.

I can see what is meant but I can also see that we need to think this through a bit more thoroughly, particularly the attendant risks that might arise. The power conveyed in this Act could almost certainly be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I speak as a long-standing alternate member of the Council of Europe, and, indeed, as someone who was for some time a chair of its committee on implementation of judgments of the court. Even if the wording were sound, I am not sure that the principle is. You would need a proper judicial process in order to destroy a drone, and you would not be able to do it as an either/or—we will either destroy the drone or make you land it and then we will talk to you. I suggest that the amendment is well meaning but, unfortunately, defective.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, destroying a drone or an unmanned aircraft is a vital mechanism, particularly for dealing with terrorism. The incident at Gatwick at the end of 2019 illustrated for us all that dealing with an intruder drone is a highly complex issue. I invite noble Lords to think back to that and to the discussions that took place in the media, and, much more importantly, behind the scenes, on exactly how to deal with a drone that was causing millions of pounds of economic damage. It was damaging the economy and causing huge individual damage to those unable to fly, yet people were paralysed into inactivity, not least because there was a lack of certainty about powers. There was also a lack of certainty about the ability to destroy the drone effectively and the safety of doing it. All those things were being taken into account.

However, there would be circumstances where destroying a drone would be the simple and clear answer to a threat. I welcome this as an interesting, probing amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I shall listen carefully to the Minister.

Going back to the Gatwick situation, I remind noble Lords that days were spent deciding how to deal with that drone. To this day, we do not know who was flying it. Therefore, the situation was never satisfactorily resolved.