Lord Cromwell:

Moved by Lord Cromwell

486A: After Clause 196, insert the following new Clause—“Use of drone technology: offence(1) A person commits an offence if they use drone technology to—(a) conduct reconnaissance of land or buildings with the intent of committing a further crime, or(b) carry items including controlled drugs, stolen goods, illegal weapons, harmful substances, or other items intended for illegal use in respect of people, property or good order. (2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both).”

My Lords, I have just been informed by the noble Lord, Lord Garnier, that I am about to commit almost a criminal offence by speaking at all. “We few, we happy few”. I will be as quick as I can. I start by thanking the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Hanson and Lord Hendy, for their kind assistance in considering this Amendment, and the former’s very helpful letter to me of 29 January.

Drone technology has transformed many aspects of life and it would be foolish to suppose that it would not be used by criminals as part of their activities across the world. The technology continues to evolve, to become autonomous and t be coupled with AI. Legislation, almost by definition, cannot keep pace with such evolving technologies. While noble Lords will be relieved to know that I am not going to tilt at AI windmills tonight, I put down this amendment to highlight the abuse of drones for criminal purposes just for reconnaissance and for illegal deliveries. I have been on the receiving end of the former, finding drones buzzing around business premises to scope out what machinery or products are stored there which criminals can later return to steal. I understand that drones are similarly used along railways, for example, to look for copper wiring to steal.

The Minister’s letter of 29 January argues that the necessary law is, on paper, largely there, and that the real challenge lies in practical enforcement. His letter explains that, while technically it may be possible to show that someone is, under the Theft Act 1968, committing the offence of “going equipped for stealing”, reconnaissance as such is nevertheless not a criminal offence, essentially because it is very hard to prove intent. I entirely accept this, and also the Minister’s point that it would not be practical or proportionate to create no-fly zones over every possible target of theft.

However, I worry about people who feel unprotected when drones are routinely flown over domestic, commercial or public property in a way that is plainly intrusive and potentially preparatory to crime. It seems that nothing can be done. They and the police must stand off and wait until an act of criminality under existing Laws is committed. I suspect that we may, in that case, see people start to take the law into their own hands.

As regards the use of drones as a means of delivery, their use to get drugs and other items into prisons is already well known, but there is a growing and wider use of drones as a delivery service for illegal items elsewhere. I was recently told about a delivery drone seen regularly flying back and forth between a drug dealer’s hilltop house and the settlement below.

The Minister’s letter encouragingly points out that new regulations now require drones to be equipped with what is called direct remote identification, which works like a digital number-plate that can be detected, apparently by anybody with a smartphone, who can then report this to the police.

That is a significant and welcome step forward, but I ask the Minister to consider two things. First, many a terrestrial crime is carried out with, for example, masks, stolen vehicles, false or cloned number-plates, or other ways of avoiding detection. It will not take anyone armed with a pair of pliers or a screwdriver long to figure out how to disable or bypass the technology, and then tell their associates via the dark web, or elsewhere. Secondly, Ministers will also need to ensure that the police have the tools, training and capacity to both exploit any detection system and deal with its inevitable circumvention.

In conclusion, I certainly do not argue with the Minister’s position that

“drones represent a serious and growing set of opportunities for illegal activity”,

and I accept that existing legislation may cover the crimes in which drones are involved. I am concerned, however, by what his letter calls

“limitations on the practical enforcement tools available”.

I very much hope that the Government can stay ahead of the technological curve, or at least not be left chasing across the land, rather like the Keystone Cops, after unidentified drones as they disappear, whizzing, over the horizon. I beg to move.

My Lords, as the Home Secretary observed in the recent white paper, policing has not always kept pace with a rapidly changing world. Airspace has indeed become a new frontier for both opportunistic and organised crime. Drones are now being used by burglars and organised gangs as near-silent scouts, identifying empty homes, weak locks or high-value items through windows. The law can, of course, address the burglary that follows, but it struggles to capture the preceding act of reconnaissance. This is particularly relevant to rural crime, where drones are acting as the advance guard for the theft and export of GPS equipment.

In our prisons, drones are described by residents as “almost routine”, delivering drugs, phones and weapons straight into exercise yards. Ministry of Justice data shows more than 1,700 drone incidents in a single year. That fuels violence and instability across the estate. However, as the Justice Committee pointed out last October, the problem is not only the drones but the conditions that allow them in: broken windows, unmaintained netting and faulty CCTV. Creating a new offence may have value, but it cannot by itself remedy years of underinvestment in the prison system.

I want to raise two further concerns. The first is an operational one. With core capital grants under severe strain, how can we realistically expect overstretched forces to invest in drone detection and countersurveillance technology? Secondly, until national integration plans are fully delivered, data on drone incursions will remain largely trapped in 43 police silos, leaving us blind to the wider intelligence picture.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for tabling his Amendment. We entirely understand the intention behind it and support its aim.

In government, we gave police forces the power to intercept or seize drones suspected of being used to break the law, and those that attempt to smuggle drugs or weapons into prisons. Before the 2024 election, we announced our intention to implement no-fly zones around prisons, extending the current provisions over airports. We therefore entirely support the aim of prohibiting drone use for criminal ends. Using drone technology as a reconnaissance tool for a crime is self-evidently wrong and that should be reflected in the law.

Similarly, using drones to carry drugs, stolen goods, weapons, harmful substances or anything similar must be tackled by the police. For the police to do so, they must be given the means. Nowhere is this more evident than in prisons, where drugs and weapons are being transported in by drones in order to run lucrative illegal businesses. Reports suggest that some offenders are deliberately breaking probation terms in order to sell drugs in jail, where they can make more money. Anything that enables this must be stamped out. If drones are indeed a means of transport for many of these drugs, we should target those who operate the drones and play a part in criminal enterprises. I hope that the Minister recognises this problem and will agree with me that the amendment is entirely correct in its aims.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for setting out the case for his Amendment. In tabling the amendment, he wrote to my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint and to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill at the Department for Transport on the issue.

I think across the Committee we share the same concerns. I stress that the Government take the issue of the use of drones to facilitate illegal activity extremely seriously. However, my noble friend Lord Hanson of Flint set out in his letter to the noble Lord that the challenges of responding to these are not gaps in our criminal law so much as limitations on the practical enforcement tools available and in regulation to improve the visibility and compliance of drones. We are working to address these issues by supporting the development of counter-drone technologies and operational approaches, and ensuring regulations are in place that enable the legitimate use of drones while assisting operational responders in identifying illegitimate users.

Amendment 486A seeks to criminalise the use of drones for criminal reconnaissance and the carrying of illicit substances. The act of criminal reconnaissance is not in itself currently an offence, as proving intent, prior to an act being committed or without substantive additional evidence, would be extremely difficult for prosecutors. Criminal reconnaissance using a drone encounters the same issue. It would be impractical and disproportionate to arrest anyone for taking photos of a property or site, or for piloting a drone. In both instances, the act of reconnaissance would not be practically distinguishable from legitimate everyday actions, making the proposed offence effectively unenforceable. Where intent could be proven, it is likely that such acts could be prosecuted under existing legislation—for example, the offence of going equipped for stealing in Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968.

The carrying of illicit materials, whether it is in and out of prisons or elsewhere at large, is already an offence, regardless of a drone’s involvement. There is already a comprehensive regime of offences relating to the possession and supply of drugs, weapons and other illicit materials. I do not think that the amendment would address any gaps in the criminal law.

The Government have already made changes to the unmanned aircraft regulations to require drones to be equipped, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, set out, with direct remote identification, which will improve visibility and accountability of compliant drones. This system will allow drones to broadcast identification and location information in-flight and will help identify drone operators who may be acting suspiciously or breaking the law.

I share the sentiment of the noble Lord and the Committee in seeking to curtail the use of drones for criminal purposes. However, for the reasons I have outlined, I ask that he withdraw his amendment and let me sit down—as I have a cough.

My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part; I am not going to namecheck—you all know who you are.

It would be an act of cruelty to encourage the Minister, with his cough, to say anything further. I was tempted to ask him to go into a lot more detail, but I do not think that is a good idea.

I suspect we may need to come back to this issue as drone technology continues to advance. I cannot resist mentioning that, more locally, the large giraffe fence that is erected in front of this building will be absolutely no defence against a drone attack—so let us hope it does not come. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment 486A withdrawn.

Amendments 486B to 486D not moved.

Clause 197: Powers to make consequential amendments etc