Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Balfe and Lord Tunnicliffe

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

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I am speaking to this general set of amendments, but I want to speak particularly on disabled safety features on drones. The Bill should make it illegal to fly a drone if any safety features are inoperable or have been disabled. My noble friend Lord Whitty tabled an amendment to this effect in Committee. The Minister’s assurance then was that the safety feature that could be referred to would be electronic conspicuity, the disabling of which would be covered under other provisions. That, we believe, is not the case. Lights, geo-awareness and geo-fencing, software functions that limit altitude, remote ID and various redundancy measures could all be covered under this provision. There are technical requirements for certain systems whereby the user cannot modify them—for example, data associated with remote ID. However, this does not protect against deliberate hacking or intentional disabling of systems. A provision that makes these acts illegal is therefore relevant.

BALPA has engaged directly with staff at the DfT on this point and we are grateful to the Minister’s officials for doing so. We note that the Government believe that sufficient safeguards are already available in the Air Navigation Order to cover this matter, but, overall, we still believe that a specific and separate offence should be created in the Bill. I make these points for the Minister to take on board, as it is highly likely that this sensible and proportionate amendment may be urged when the matter is considered in the other place. I hope the Minister can take this back to the department and reflect on it as the Bill proceeds further.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 22, in simple terms, allows an appropriate authority to destroy a drone. The Minister has been kind enough to debate this at some length and wrote me a letter on 11 January setting out three points. First, legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists. Secondly, operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable. Thirdly, existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary. I am not being pedantic here, but the words in the last two points, particularly, are of a partial kind. The Minister does not really need to debate reasons two and three with me. When it comes to the third, I know that “existing technology is such that destroying a UA is often unnecessary”, but it may be necessary. I accept that, “operationally, destroying a UA is not generally desirable”, as all sorts of second-order effects would have to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the only point I wish to debate is that, “legally, the power to destroy a UA already exists”. In her response, I would like the Minister to convince me of that.

I am aware, through my previous responsibilities, of the impact that can be made with two kilos of Semtex. The potential for a determined terrorist to use a UA for malicious terrorism is real. Such a terrorist coming from a sophisticated organisation would, of course, not have a drone with all the protective devices that a commercially applied drone has. The Gatwick incident showed that the police were then powerless, probably for technical reasons, to stop massive disruption taking place by the use of a drone. It seems to me that if a serious terrorist-like incident were developing, one would want a clear power for the authorities to destroy a drone. The burden rests with the Minister to convince us that the powers that exist are genuinely sufficient to make sure that the authorities, in appropriate circumstances, could destroy a drone in the interests of safety and limiting damage or massive destruction. I beg to move.

[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.