Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Richard Burden

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kit Malthouse]

I am slightly confused. Is the hon. Gentleman attempting to legislate for what is essentially a political decision? [Interruption.] It is for the Government to decide to have a strategy, but he is attempting to legislate for that decision, which is surely within the Minister’s ambit. I am confused. This is presumably, as far as I can see, a political decision.

[Richard Burden]

Call me old-fashioned, Ms Ryan, but I do not think it is the job of anyone other than Parliament to make that decision. If a political decision is a decision based on what Members of the legislature, in their judgment, think is the right thing to do, there is nothing wrong with that.

[Richard Burden]

Thank you, Ms Ryan.

If the hon. Member for North West Hampshire is suggesting that we should not encourage the uptake of such vehicles, he is entitled to that view, although it is not one that I share. Throughout our debates on the Bill so far, there has been consensus across the Committee that, whatever else we do, encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles should be part of the picture.

[Kit Malthouse]

I completely understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I agree. I am a convert to electric vehicles—hydrogen electric vehicles, as it happens. I just think it is for Ministers to put out a strategy, and they take their chances with the House if they do or do not.

On a point of order, Ms Ryan—forgive my legislative inexperience—as I understand it, under the Standing Orders, amendments and new clauses have to satisfy the notion that they are not vague, and I find this very vague. It does not lay out what form the strategy should be in—is it one side of A4? It does not say what the sanction is if the Minister does not do it. There is all sorts of vagueness in it. We are making the law of the land, but it seems to be bound up in the idea that we are legislating for what is essentially a political decision.

Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kit Malthouse and Richard Burden

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Burden]

Q May I move on to another subject? In the previous panel I asked Mr Moriarty to comment on the fact that there is nothing in the Bill relating to the regulation of drones. It is an omission from the Bill that has been commented on in a number of quarters. Do the rest of you have any observations on whether the Bill could be usefully extended to say something about drone safety? If so, what?

Steve Landells: From BALPA’s point of view, we would like to see the Bill extended to include drones. The prime thing we would like to see is a mandatory registration process for drones. At the moment, anyone can buy a drone and fly it anywhere, and they do not have to take any responsibility for it. At the moment, if the police find a drone inside the environs of an airport or on the runway, they have no idea who that drone belongs to. We would really like to see a compulsory registration process.

Perhaps before first flight you would have to go online to get an unlock code. During that process we could get exposure to the rules and an online test for a drone operator. That would also mean that the operators would have an idea of what the rules were. A lot of the problems being caused by drones are through ignorance— 17 near-misses were reported between manned aircraft and drones last year—so we need to educate the people flying the drones that there are rules and regulations in place. It is a dangerous thing to do, and we think that a compulsory registration scheme would address a lot of the problems.

Simon Bray: We would not disagree with that. We are mindful that there need to be restrictions around particular locations, as there are currently. However, in the case of aircraft, it matters not hugely where you put in those restrictions; it is the whole bit about the flight paths in and out that we have concerns about.

[Kit Malthouse]

Q I have a couple of quick questions. I was slightly concerned about the definition of a vehicle. In the Bill it says that it means

“any thing used for travel by land, water or air”.

Do you think it might be sensible to extend that slightly to include vehicles that are not used for travel such as bulldozers and very tall cranes in the scope? Does a police horse used for travel count as a vehicle? If a police horse in a public order situation were to be dazzled by lasers, should it be included? The definition is quite specific, so do you feel it might benefit from being widened a little?

Simon Bray: I think it would be worth looking at. Things like police horses could be dealt with in different ways—cruelty to animals, assault of the police officers riding them and so on. It would be worth looking at that to ensure that the definition is suitably inclusive of some of the things you just mentioned.