Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Second sitting)

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Q 65 We will now hear oral evidence from the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Downstream Fuel Association and the Association of Convenience Stores. We have until 3 pm for this session. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record, starting with Mr Woodall?

Edward Woodall: Good afternoon. I am Ed Woodall. I am head of policy and public affairs at the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 33,500 local shops and 8,000 forecourt retailers across the UK.

Teresa Sayers: I am Teresa Sayers. I am the chief executive of the Downstream Fuel Association. We represent the non-refining companies and major supermarkets.

Steve Nash: I am Steve Nash. I am the chief executive of the Institute of the Motor Industry, which is the professional body for individuals working in the motor industry.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Q Welcome. I have two sets of questions. The first is probably principally to Mr Woodall and Ms Sayers, and the second is principally to Mr Nash. On the Bill’s provisions on electric charging points, I think it is fair to say that your two organisations have been rather more critical of what the Government are suggesting than a number of others. Can you outline why you think they are going in the wrong the direction with the provisions on charging infrastructure?

Teresa Sayers: First, we welcome the opportunity to comment on the Bill and work with the Government on looking at ways to build up the infrastructure for electric vehicles. I represent four major retailers, and my members already have some provision for electric charging points within their infrastructure.

We believe that the emphasis on petrol forecourts is wrong for a number of reasons, not least because the configuration of forecourts does not lend itself to allowing cars to be placed there for in excess of 20 to 30 minutes. We provide electric charging points, as I say, but they are exclusively in the car parks of our stores and at head offices. We are looking closely at how we can further develop provision along those lines, but we are very concerned about the emphasis on placing them in the forecourt.

Edward Woodall: Also, there is the question of how we define “large fuel retailer” in the Bill to determine whether a retailer has the capacity for electric vehicle charging points on their sites. That is quite a difficult task to deliver in regulation, because this is quite a diverse and different sector. That could take into account fuel volumes and number of sites, and it would also have to take into account size of sites, as Teresa was saying, in terms of having the space for people to charge their vehicles on the site.

I suppose there is also a concern about the desire of consumers to charge in those locations. The Government’s own evidence suggests that 95% of vehicle users currently charge at home; 26% then charge their vehicles in workplaces; and only 12% look to charge their vehicles in public spaces. Would they choose to do that on fuel sites? It is a question; I am not sure. Do the fuel sites have the capacity to deliver in this way? Only 11% of our members have seating areas in their forecourt sites, so what does someone do for the 30 minutes if there are rapid charging facilities on those sites?

There are other logistical issues around whether sites have the capacity to deliver that energy. Electric vehicle charging points will need a direct connection with the grid; obviously, that does not cover all sites across the board. So there is a real challenge in how you define in regulations a large fuel retail site, and whether it has capacity to deliver those services.

[Richard Burden]

Q The Bill refers to “large fuel retailers”. Evidence that we heard this morning rather suggested that what will make or break the expansion of electric charging infrastructure is much broader than motorway service areas. There was a lot of discussion about supermarkets, what to do around on-street parking and smart charging at home. I will press you a bit further on whether your reservations about the parts of the Bill relating to electric charging are concerns about Ministers being given regulation-making powers to mandate others to provide charging points to certain specifications. Or do you basically accept that principle, but think that the provisions are targeted wrongly in focusing on large fuel retailers?

Edward Woodall: The latter. I understand the principle and the objectives, but is it right to focus this purely on fuel sites, when the evidence suggests that consumers are perhaps not looking to go to those sites to charge their vehicles? There is also a concern about whether it matches up with what drivers will do while they are charging their vehicles. It makes sense to have charging points in an area where they might be going to the cinema or the shops, as opposed to having them on a forecourt site, which may not have the space or the retail capacity to deal with that issue.

We also put, in our submission, evidence about ways to incentivise other partners to use this system—for example, changes to the national planning policy framework might give more specific direction on where charging points should go, so that local plans could be informed by that, and capacity could be increased across the board.

[Richard Burden]

Q Can I come to Mr Nash on a different area? In the written evidence you provided, you put quite a lot of emphasis on the importance of training and accreditation for people working on these charging points and autonomous vehicles in the future. Could you say a little bit more about your concerns?

Steve Nash: Absolutely. I think it is worth understanding a little bit about our sector. Everybody knows we have a franchise sector, and we tend to talk about the independent sector, but that is a catch-all phrase. There are about 40,000 businesses in there, ranging from Halfords and Kwik Fit down to a man working on someone’s drive.

Right now, of all the technicians out there working on cars—there are just under 200,000 people we know of, but there are probably quite a few that we do not know of, because they do not necessarily belong to a trade body or anything else—only about 1% are qualified to work on high-voltage electrics. Let us make no mistake about this: you have to be licensed to work on domestic electrics, and I would venture to suggest that the electrics in an electric car are potentially more lethal than the mains. We are talking about direct current—more than enough to fry you—so you do have to be properly trained and know what you are doing. In this sense, a car is not a car, just because it looks like a car. These are the biggest technical changes we have seen for 100 years. This is not an evolution of old technology—this is new technology.

We know that the manufacturers will do what they need to do to ensure that their franchise dealers can cope. Most of them are already using our accreditation scheme to qualify people at different levels, including knowing what you should not do and how to disable the electrics to work on other non-high-voltage systems safely. The higher level is for working on the high-voltage systems.

If you really want these cars to proliferate, there are a couple of problems. One is that right now it can cost you up to 50% more to insure one of these cars, because the insurance industry is quite aware that there is a limited repair market out there. If your car has been in an accident, you need somebody who knows what they are doing to put the thing back together, and the industry is assuming a higher cost because there is a limited repair market. That will continue unless you find a way of engaging the wider market, and the wider market will not readily make that step because there is cost involved, so it becomes a chicken and egg situation.

As I said, there is a very real health and safety issue. You do not see it now, because there are 32 million cars on the road that do not have this technology, and there is plenty to go round in the service and repair market. There are cars that have been around for a while, such as the Toyota Prius models and so on, but we know from our own experience that a lot of the independent guys do not touch those—they pass them back to the dealers—because they do not need that work to make a living. However, as these cars proliferate—and that is everyone’s intention; if you look at the product plans that all of the manufacturers have at all the motor shows, it is all about plug-in hybrids and electric cars, so these cars will proliferate—if you want a competitive market for servicing these cars, you need the independent sector to engage.

To make that happen, first you need regulations to protect people’s safety, and secondly you have to consider using some of the large fund—I believe it is something like £600 million—that has been put aside to help move us in that direction. Some of that money should be directed towards a training fund to help the independents engage in the training that they need to work on the cars safely.

[Richard Burden]

Q Could you outline how it would work? In other words, how would the Government, or whoever, define the vehicles that would require licensed people to work on them, and what things they would need to work on? For example, some might say you should not have to be licensed in order to check the tyres; that is different from working on the electrics. There is potential for this to be a difficult area for definition.

Steve Nash: We have worked very closely with manufacturers to define three levels of accreditation. Level 2 says you can work safely on the passive systems of the car, so you are still going to have steering and suspension. I was going to say brakes, but actually a lot of these cars have regenerative brakes, so even that is potentially risky. The second level of accreditation is knowing how to switch off the high-level electronics and knowing what you should not touch, because there are certain systems on the car that have very high residual currents in them, even when the car is turned off.

Level 4 accreditation is for people who are properly trained to work on the high-voltage systems, which include the control systems and the battery packs. Working with manufacturers, we have refined that to understand that it covers the entirety of their own group of technicians working in their franchise.

[The Chair]

If Members wish to remove their jackets, that would be fine. Let us try to keep questions and answers crisp.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Good. Thank you.

[Richard Burden]

I should declare an interest. I am an honorary fellow of the Institute of the Motor Industry. It is non-pecuniary, but I thought I had better put that on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Q You know that the Bill attempts to strike a balance between, on the one hand, doing enough not to constrain future development—indeed, to facilitate it—and, on the other hand, trying to determine what the schedule describes as an “unknowable future”. Have we got that right, or should we have done more? I draw particular attention to the relationship between connection and automation and the issues of privacy and security of data. Should we do more now, or is it enough that we take powers to do things when we know more later?

Iain Forbes: It is a really important question. The advent of automated vehicle technology will in time require changes to different parts of our regulatory system. We have heard about some of those already today. The trick is to try to find ways of targeting the areas where we think action is necessary now in order to unblock barriers, or where we know technology is near to market. We need to make sure that we have the framework in place to enable the safe use of that technology.

To some extent it is a question that different people have different views on, but we certainly consulted last year with a range of different stakeholders on the areas where they thought action was necessary in order to ensure that the UK was doing the right things to set up a framework. The area in the Bill was the one that stakeholders highlighted as the one that was most important to act on first.

In time we will have to have further steps in the process of getting our regulatory framework ready. In doing so, I would hope to follow the same approach of identifying where the barriers are that need action now and which technologies are nearer to market. We need to make sure that we have the framework in place to enable those.

[Richard Burden]

Q Can I go back to the definition? At the start of the session you said that the thing you welcomed in the Bill was that it would define what an automated vehicle is by whether or not that vehicle was on the list produced by the Secretary of State. Do you think that creating a definition will be simple? Where would autonomous emergency braking come into that? A large number of vehicles might have autonomous emergency braking that one would not normally define as automated vehicles. Nevertheless, autonomous emergency braking, by its nature, will take control of the car and stop it whatever the driver is doing. So would the car fitted with autonomous emergency braking need to appear on that list, because it would

“in at least some circumstances or situations”

be capable of driving itself without having to be monitored by an individual? If it were included, are we saying that this new insurance product that the Bill brings into effect is essentially going to be the norm, not the exception, much more quickly than we thought?

Iain Forbes: Autonomous emergency braking is one of a suite of technologies sometimes referred to as advanced driver assistance systems. The Bill does not seek to set out a regime to manage those systems. It is about automated driving in vehicles where the driver can step out of the loop and does not need to be involved in monitoring the system. The difference between those systems and ADAS systems, as they are sometimes called, is that the driver always has to oversee what is going on in the vehicle. For those sorts of systems we anticipate the current regime being appropriate.

[Richard Burden]

Q Is the boundary between those two as exact as you say? In a sense, with autonomous emergency braking, the driver has to monitor it. Whether the driver is monitoring it or not, that technology will take control of the vehicle.

Iain Forbes: We anticipate the measures in the Bill interacting with other aspects of law, including type approval requirements for vehicles, which will be looking at how different systems should be approved for safe use on the roads in this country. There is a lot of technical work to do to understand what the particular approval regimes will be for different forms of technology, but we anticipate the higher levels of automation that we are targeting in the Bill being different and distinct in the way they are approved from the ABS system that you were talking about.

[Richard Burden]

Q What kind of consultation would you expect the Minister to go through before producing his or her list? At the moment, the Minister has complete discretion. There is nothing in the Bill that says he or she has to consult anywhere.

Iain Forbes: I would anticipate quite a lot of work at international level to set the regulatory framework and technical standards that will underpin the safety framework for approving these vehicles. When that happens, there will be a decision for Ministers to take about how they consult with stakeholders in the UK to make sure that people are comfortable with those definitions before they are transferred into UK law.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Q May I ask a couple of questions relating to the way that you have looked at the insurance? It seems to me that you are treating the concept of ownership as it is today, rather than as it is likely to become; transport is likely to become a service, rather than a commodity. Is that fair?

Iain Forbes: The policy aim of the Bill was to set up a framework that protected innocent victims of incidents relating to these vehicles in such a way that it felt similar to the current framework. We can have a framework around vehicle sale that is based on current patterns of ownership. In future that might change, as you say, in which case we would have to review the framework to make sure that we were making appropriate provision in law to allow people to operate the system safely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Q May I begin by exploring some of the Bill provisions relating to the relationship between the CAA and National Air Traffic Services? Perhaps we can come on to the issues relating to the air travel organisers’ licence after that. I understand that the proposed changes have been broadly welcomed by stakeholders. I am struggling to understand how significant they are. They change the procedure through which the CAA can modify regulations under which NATS operates. Do we have any sense of how many of them are likely to happen and how often? The impact assessment says that the scale of the issue with which we are dealing is highly uncertain. Can you give us any guidance on the scale of the changes?

Richard Moriarty: The changes are all aimed at modernising our regime. We change the licence periodically: perhaps once or twice every three or four years we introduce a raft of changes, which are mainly to do with the charges that NATS can pass on to airlines and the service standards that it needs to meet. Of course, all of that needs to be balanced, because we need to ensure that it can finance its businesses.

I think it is worth saying, in order to give you comfort, that these measures are almost precisely similar to measures that were passed in the Civil Aviation Act 2012 in relation to our regulation of airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick. My answer to your question is that they are very helpful and to be welcomed. They modernise what is now quite an outdated regime for NATS, and they put NATS on a very similar footing to other regulated entities.

In terms of NATS’s protection, it is important to say that nothing in these changes takes away our primary duty towards the safe system—safety. We also have a secondary duty to make sure that NATS cannot find it unduly difficult to finance its licence for activities. For those reasons, I strongly welcome these measures.

[Richard Burden]

Q Looking ahead to the next few years, for the moment we will be part of the single European sky framework. That, presumably, could bring a number of initiatives under it that would be relevant to the provisions in this Bill. Am I right about that? What could the impact of Brexit be on this area of the Bill?

Richard Moriarty: I fear I would be misleading you to be too precise about what some of those impacts would be, but one thing we have made clear in conversation with departmental colleagues is that we can regulate NATS successfully using our domestic legislation under the Transport Act 2000. This is one of the reasons why we are keen to modernise it in this way.

[Richard Burden]

Q So there should not be any impact at all?

Richard Moriarty: It is too early for me to say whether there would be an impact one way or the other. On the things we most care about—safety—NATS has been able to charge good prices to airlines and provide a good level of service. I am quite comfortable that the regime we would have in the UK based on the Transport Act 2000 would give us sufficient levers, particularly with these modernisation changes.

[Richard Burden]

Q The impact assessment, again, talks about the likelihood of there being what it describes as a “light-touch” review of these new arrangements after five years and “a full review” after 10. I must confess that I could not see reference to either of those in the Bill. What was your understanding of the review arrangements around these changes?

Richard Moriarty: I cannot speak to that specific review, but I think it makes sense to review the powers that have been introduced after the event. We have done that in other arenas, so it is something we would welcome. We can work with the Department on the timing of that.

[Richard Burden]

Q But the principle of a review after a period of time would be something—

Richard Moriarty: I do not have a problem with that.

[Richard Burden]

Q Can we move on to the ATOL questions within the Bill? Can you describe what the changes mean in practice for consumers and holidaymakers?

Richard Moriarty: First, it is worth saying that the changes in the Bill at the moment are enabling provisions, but they are to enable us to implement the package travel directive. There are a number of important and welcome developments from that which will be good for UK consumers. First, the directive makes it much clearer what the definition of a package is. This may seem self-evident to most people but an industry of loopholes has developed over the years. Having clarity on this is a good thing.

Secondly, the package travel directive puts a requirement on member states to have effective regimes in place for insolvency. This is a big step forward compared with where we are today. It is also worth saying—although John may have a better view on this—that this provides a growth opportunity for UK businesses as firms in this country will be able to sell their goods and services into Europe.

John de Vial: We certainly support that view. The provisions in this Bill are necessary and we have no concerns about them as enabling legislation. I agree with Richard’s subsequent points. UK companies can currently sell in other European markets but they are required to license separately and individually in each market to comply with its version and its implementation of the 1990 directive. If we have a regime with the directive to come, which the provisions lay the ground for, and our traders in the UK can use the ATOL system and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy arrangements to comply across Europe, that is a clear advantage for them trading across European member states.

[Richard Burden]

Q Are those companies covered by that protection because they are established in the UK?

John de Vial: By virtue of being established in the UK, you would be entitled to it.

[Richard Burden]

Q Wherever they sell?

John de Vial: Yes.

[Richard Burden]

Q Looking at it the other way round, if there is a company that is established in another part of the European Union but sells into the UK, I understand that the package travel directive would say that the protections that it should offer would be those that would be applicable in that member state, rather than those that would be applicable in the UK.

John de Vial: Yes.

[Richard Burden]

Q Is there any potential downside to that? For any packages sold into the UK by companies established outside of the UK, could the protection be less than it is now?

John de Vial: Not less than it is now—we have that problem today. The current UK ATOL regulations and package travel regulations exempt companies that are compliant elsewhere. We have seen the problem in recent history. Our view is that, to the extent that this new directive is more robust and should raise the bar of implementation and enforcement in other member states, that can only be a good thing.

[Richard Burden]

Q Will it raise it to the level of ATOL protection?

John de Vial: No, I don’t believe it will. I think there are a number of aspects where the ATOL position is superior. The most obvious example is repatriation. The directive requires the costs of repatriation to be protected, so all member states should be doing that. The UK is not unique, but is one of a small number of member states, where organised repatriations—where the customer is, as it were, rescued—is the norm. We do have a superior system in the UK in that sense.

[Richard Burden]

Q A final couple of questions from me, and it is back to Brexit again. A lot of the changes in the Bill arise out of the package travel directive. From what you have said, some of our domestic ATOL protection is superior to what is in the package travel directive anyway, but are there any implications of Brexit for what this Bill brings in?

Richard Moriarty: Regardless of Brexit, this is a set of provisions that we would be supporting. It is worth remembering that 77% of UK consumers choose their holiday in Europe. As John suggested, the position around insolvency protection may not be all the way up to ATOL gold standard, but it will be a lot better, and enhanced by this package travel directive, than it is today. The former directive we fall back on is from the early ’90s, which predates the growth of the internet and people buying their holidays online.

John de Vial: I support that. It is also part of our job, with the ATOL brand and our brand as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s approved body, to promote the merits of the schemes in the UK with UK businesses, where those exceed the European base level.

[Richard Burden]

Q The Bill provides for an air travel trust to be set up by the Secretary of State, but also leaves open the possibility that that could be split into a number of trusts if circumstances change. Could you tell us a bit about what that is all about and the kind of circumstances?

Richard Moriarty: If I may, I will declare an interest as a trustee of the current air travel trust. The consultations and discussions that the Department has had with the industry and consumer groups have suggested that the position around how people buy holidays could change. They are very keen to have some flexibility. Rather than have one trust hardwired into legislation, they want to give themselves some more flexibility. For instance, one example that has been talked about a lot is linked travel arrangements, where it is not quite a package, but is two transactions for hotel and travel that are very closely associated. In my view, it would be prudent and sensible for Government to have the flexibility to respond to that. It is my understanding that that is why they are taking the enabling provision at the current time. In implementing that, I hope that they will follow the practice that they have followed today: consult with us, consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.

[Richard Burden]

Q I would be grateful if I could explore one other area with you briefly. One thing that raised a number of eyebrows when this Bill was published was the fact that it did not say anything about the regulation or safety of drones. How do you see the existing regulatory framework, and if we were going to look to improve that framework, who do you think should be responsible, for example, for bringing in geo-fencing?

Richard Moriarty: Drones are something that we are spending an enormous amount of time on—getting the balance right between effective regulation to prevent aviation-related risks and allowing this new technology and market to grow. There is an existing set of regulations for both commercial and public operators, but it is worth highlighting two important initiatives that we should all take stock of.

First, the Government are consulting on the future regulation of drones at the moment; we are working with them on that. Also, at the European level, the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, is doing some important work, which we hope it will publish in April and which may relate to international manufacturing standards, because things like geo-fencing, which effectively prevents drones flying into controlled space, are only really effective if that can be done through international manufacturing standards. That is one of the reasons why we are keen to see that EASA publication, which is mooted for April, before we decide next steps.

[Mr Hayes]

Q On the issue of penalties in respect of ATOL, you will know that this Bill attempts to amend the Transport Act 2000. In respect of section 225 of the Transport Act 2000, you will also know that there is a responsibility to prepare and publish a policy statement on the use of penalties. How do you envisage these penalties taking shape, and how will you ensure that their use is proportionate?

Richard Moriarty: The first thing I would say is that our having powers to introduce financial penalties for NATS brings us into line with the powers that we have for airports. It also brings us into line with other economic regulatory regimes in energy, water and telecoms, so it brings the regulation of NATS up to the modern standards of the other sectors.

We already have a published policy on how we would go about issuing a financial penalty for the airports. My starting position would be that the policy should be similar for NATS. Financial penalties are rare events in economic regulation: they do not come around too often, and there is a good reason for that. But they are a necessary part of the armoury, if you like, to drive the right behaviours and give a deterrent effect.

We would obviously have a graduated approach to enforcement. That would start off through informal means—conversations with the company, looking to it to put the issue right. If that had failed, we would move on to a more formal footing with them. I tend to think of financial penalties as a bit of a last resort but, as I said, it is important to have them there because it incentivises the right behaviours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

Q Can I ask about rights in the Bill? The big change is that you make the modification and NATS has the right to appeal, as opposed to the co-determination model that we have at the moment. There is also a provision for other parties to appeal, including the owners or operators of aircraft that you consider appropriate and the owners or managers of prescribed aerodromes that you consider appropriate. I am struggling to work out who has got the right to appeal the modifications you make to NATS’s licence. What does prescribed aerodromes mean?

Richard Moriarty: The appeal mechanisms that are being introduced for NATS effectively replicate the same appeal mechanisms that we have for the regulated airports. For instance, an airline can appeal a determination that we make for Heathrow or Gatwick airport. There is an element of consistency across aviation in these provisions. Because NATS provides the London terminal airspace service, it also touches directly on some of the London airports—principally the large ones, but there may be some small London airports in it as well. It is right that the Government has a provision to name those airports, because they will be materially affected by certain decisions that we will take over the settlement that we reach with NATS.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from members of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence, and for their time and co-operation. It has been most helpful. Thank you very much. We are running a little ahead of schedule, so I propose to suspend the Committee until 4.10 pm, as the witnesses for the next panel have not yet arrived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

Q Why only manslaughter? Why not murder, if somebody has deliberately used a laser as a weapon to dazzle pilots?

Richard Goodwin: If someone said, “Yes, I was trying to kill all the people on that plane and I did it,” then yes, absolutely.

[Richard Burden]

Q Commander Bray, you mentioned that you have written looking for a defined power for stop and search relating to lasers.

Simon Bray: Yes.

[Richard Burden]

Q For that to work, would it need to be predicated on a redefinition of lasers in some way as an offensive weapon?

Simon Bray: Not necessarily, no, in support of this Act, if we had a power—it would be sparingly used—to search individuals for lasers that had been used for the purposes of the offence under clause 22.

[Richard Burden]

Q If lasers were going to be defined in some way as offensive weapons, would the kind of laser need to be defined more closely?

Simon Bray: If some of these lasers were to be classified as an offensive weapon as a matter of course, we could use existing legislation to stop and search for them in any event.

[Richard Burden]

Q But if there were to be a reclassification to make them offensive weapons, would that reclassification somehow need to define the strength of laser involved?

Simon Bray: Yes.

[Richard Burden]

Q At the moment, there is no need to do that because the action of pointing a laser, however strong it is, at a vehicle is the offence. Presumably, without reclassifying them as offensive weapons, if you got your power of stop and search, that would be because of suspicion that the laser would be used for—or had been used for—that purpose. But if you were simply going to say that the possession of a laser could be the possession of an offensive weapon, would that need to define the strength of the laser?

Simon Bray: You would have to have the definition of what is an offensive weapon clearly in the process of stopping and searching or when trying to work out whether it is of that type. You would not know unless you had the laser tested afterwards to see whether it met the criteria.

Richard Goodwin: I am trying to rack my brains about reasonable excuse and lawful excuse, which is in the current offensive weapons legislation—why someone in a park at 10 o’clock at night has a laser in their pocket. I am slightly reluctant to go down the route of power because that is difficult for an operational officer at the time to understand and define. Some lasers come in as one thing and then turn out, when they are tested, to be something completely different. For me it is more about what that person intends to do with any laser, rather than about some of the more high-powered ones.

Paul Watts: It is not necessarily the power that is causing the threat, but the dazzle and the distraction that we spoke about. That effect would come from a very large power range of lasers.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Q Given your point that the power is not entirely relevant because the dazzle is so important, can you talk about the other equipment that exists with lasers today? Surveyors use lasers, and presumably there is a risk, so they must be cautious about how they use them. Driverless vehicles are likely to use lasers in different ways and various autonomous measuring equipment is likely to use lasers. Can you talk about the dangers that they pose and how they might be mitigated?

Steve Landells: Public Health England says that lasers under about 20 milliwatts will not cause any eye damage—so, provided that they are not pointing up in the air, they are not going to dazzle and distract, and they will not cause eye damage if they happen to strike your eye. A normal blinking reaction will take into account a 20-milliwatt laser, but the problem is that the ones we are seeing now are 2,500 milliwatts or 4,000 milliwatts. They are the problem. Depending on the uses that they are put to—astronomers use them as well—and providing that they are at the lower end of the power range, if they are not being pointed in the air with driverless cars and things like that, maybe that is not an issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous]

Q Are light displays a current issue for pilots?

Martin Drake: Generally speaking, no. The laser displays tend to be very broad beam—there is little collimation to the lasers. Displays tend to be licensed if they are close to airports, and we are usually told when they are there, so that is not really the issue. Paris has a laser that spins around the Eiffel tower, and Greenwich has one that goes up the Greenwich meridian at the moment. Those are not a problem to us at all. They tend to be low-level and pointed down across the heads of the crowd rather than up into the air.

One thing the measure would address is search and rescue. They have a thing called a laser flare, which has a fan of laser that, again, is not well collimated. The search and rescue aircraft can see those things for miles, so if someone is bobbing around in a little dinghy or is stuck on the top of a hill it is really useful. Obviously someone would not be intending to dazzle and distract—they would be intending to be rescued. I think there are legitimate uses that would be absolutely fine.

Steve Landells: Airliners tend to be going into a predictable place, whereas helicopter operators tend to operate in areas where you might not normally expect air traffic. It is probably not such a big issue for the airlines.

Simon Bray: But for people who, for example, have a laser and want to shine it on the clouds, the big question is whether they have exercised all due diligence and taken all reasonable precautions. That is going to be the crux of it at court.

[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.