By Chris Jones

A new report, Back from the battlefield: domestic drones in the UK, investigates the use of drones by public and private entities in the UK. It focuses on law enforcement and border control agencies, examining the laws, regulations, and public and private funding surrounding drone technology development. The report analyzes the current situation and potential future applications, advocating for public discussion and decision-making before widespread drone use, particularly for surveillance, becomes commonplace.

Due to limited safety measures and regulatory frameworks, drone use in the UK is currently restricted, especially among public entities, despite efforts to broaden their adoption. Currently, private companies undertaking surveying, mapping, photography, filming, and safety inspections operate the majority of licensed drones in UK airspace. However, as technology advances and becomes more readily available, this is expected to shift. Various initiatives are underway to capitalize on the anticipated substantial market for civilian drones.

Public Funds

Millions of pounds in public and private funding directed toward drone technology and regulation research and development are propelling this push. In the past decade, approximately £80 million in public funds have been allocated to domestic drone research and development, though this figure likely underrepresents the true amount given the potential civilian applications of military drone research.

ASTRAEA, the UK’s flagship research program, received £32 million in public funding, matched by the private sector. This program aimed to develop technology enabling routine drone flights in domestic airspace with minimal consideration for privacy, data protection, or other civil liberties and human rights implications. It appears to have been designed and implemented by major arms manufacturers, such as BAE Systems, Cassidian, Cobham, Rolls-Royce, and Thales, alongside government officials, without democratic input or oversight.

Civilian drone research and testing in the UK are poised for further expansion with the September 2013 establishment of the National Aeronautical Centre. This privately owned facility enables the development, testing, evaluation, training, and demonstration of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) capable of flying beyond visual range. This center complements existing drone testing facilities in west Wales, primarily used for defense purposes but now accessible to civilian and military contractors and operators. It has the capacity to accommodate all anticipated UAS sizes for production and development over the next 20 years.

The exact amount invested by private firms in drone research and development over the past decade remains unclear. However, in publicly available data on joint public-private projects, public funding consistently outweighs private contributions. This aligns with established models of public investment in technologies not yet considered market-ready. However, it’s crucial to note that private companies are ultimately positioned to reap the financial rewards of a projected multi-billion pound domestic drone market.

In this context, the role of government bodies in “market creation” is evident, as demonstrated by ongoing attempts by the European Commission to integrate drones into domestic airspace. Recent information reveals a UK “Cross Government Working Group on Remotely Piloted Aerial Systems” with multiple objectives, including identifying and addressing obstacles to a successful UK industry base to support the government’s growth agenda.

Civil Liberties Concerns

Notably absent from the Cross Government Working Group’s priorities is any mention of privacy or civil liberties. The government’s stance appears clear, with Policing Minister Damian Green stating in May 2013 that the use of unmanned aerial vehicles must comply with existing Civil Aviation Authority regulations. Covert use by public authorities, including law enforcement, would require authorization under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000. Additionally, any overt use of surveillance camera systems in public spaces within England and Wales would be subject to a new code of practice under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

However, both RIPA and the new (voluntary) Surveillance Camera Code of Practice have significant flaws and do not apply to private entities or individuals. RIPA, in particular, has been widely criticized by legal professionals, advocacy groups, and charities. The legal support charity JUSTICE argues that RIPA fails to provide adequate safeguards against unwarranted and excessive surveillance, rendering it insufficient to address developments such as aerial surveillance drones, Automatic Number Plate Recognition, deep packet interception, and the internet itself.

Given these inadequacies, compounded by ongoing revelations about mass telecommunications surveillance by security agencies and the controversial use of undercover police officers in protest movements, a comprehensive review of the UK’s legal and regulatory framework surrounding surveillance is arguably necessary.

The crucial issues of safety, airworthiness, and pilot training are overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the UK. Current regulations appear to address these concerns reasonably well, particularly the tendency of drones to crash. However, there are growing apprehensions about drones weighing less than 7kg, which fall outside the scope of CAA regulations, especially given the increasing construction, purchase, and use of drones by individuals.

While enforcing a regulatory and legal framework for “DIY” drones, especially smaller models, may prove challenging, it is becoming increasingly necessary as private drone use expands. These devices are prone to crashing, resulting in reported fatalities and injuries from falling drones. The risk is significant: earlier this year, the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) disclosed a near-collision between a small drone and an airliner over Florida, which could have had catastrophic consequences. The increasing use of drones by private companies also raises questions about the government’s reliance on a voluntary Surveillance Camera Code of Practice and the provisions of the Data Protection Act, enacted in 1998 when surveillance by aerial drone was a distant prospect.

Law Enforcement and Drones

Responses to Freedom of Information requests sent to all UK police forces reveal that eleven forces have reportedly used drones, but only two—Staffordshire and the Police Service of Northern Ireland—currently employ the technology. These forces utilize drones for various purposes, including monitoring demonstrations, surveilling poachers, deterring antisocial behavior, and tracking criminals. Other forces have encountered obstacles: Merseyside police, after boasting about apprehending a car thief using a drone, were reprimanded by the Civil Aviation Authority and prohibited from operating their drone due to a lack of licensing.

Further removed from public scrutiny, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (now the National Crime Agency) appears to have acquired drone technology in late 2012, signing a £9 million contract with Selex ES for five years of “managed air support services.” While Selex ES does not manufacture planes or helicopters, it produces and sells advanced unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to customers globally. This contract coincided with British police forces increasingly invoking “national security” exemptions when responding to Freedom of Information requests related to drones, allowing them to neither confirm nor deny information pertaining to the Serious Organised Crime Agency.

Over time, the police’s approach to unmanned technology has become more centralized. An Unmanned Aerial Systems Steering Group, established in October 2012 and run by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the National Police Air Service, keeps chief constables updated on developments. A standardized technical requirement for police drones has been developed by the Home Office, and police representatives are presumably involved in the aforementioned Cross Government Working Group.

While the National Police Air Service remains reticent about its drone-related information, referring inquiries back to ACPO, it seems that the widespread acquisition and deployment of drones by police forces is not imminent. This suggests that the time for a meaningful debate on the issue is now.

Drones for Border Control?

Revelations in 2010 that Kent Police and the UK Border Agency collaborated with BAE Systems to develop drones for border monitoring sparked concerns among civil liberties organizations. Other proposed applications included monitoring illegal waste disposal and ATM thefts. However, this project, known as the South Coast Partnership, is defunct. Kent Police, who later downplayed the project as “never a structured arrangement,” were seemingly abandoned by BAE Systems, receiving notification of the project’s termination via telephone. The force claims to possess no documentation related to the project.

Nevertheless, Kent Police are participating in a cross-border, European Union-funded project called “3i” with French and Dutch authorities and institutions. This project, with a similar objective of utilizing drones for border control, critical infrastructure monitoring, and environmental monitoring, received half its total funding (€1,854,571) from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy, with Kent Police receiving €53,421.

The project aims to deliver a prototype unmanned aerial vehicle and contribute to the knowledge base on UAVs and their application for maritime security, encompassing incident response, preventive patrols of points of interest, and critical infrastructure monitoring. One use case involves monitoring unexpected movements of small vessels across borders for activities like smuggling, which may be of interest to ACPO’s Unmanned Aerial Systems Steering Group, which previously noted the potential usefulness of drones deployed at borders for “securing the borders from refugees and drug importation.”

A Democratic Debate

In conclusion, the report argues that the widespread deployment of high-powered state surveillance drones, a fear frequently voiced in recent media, has not materialized. Therefore, it is crucial to initiate a public dialogue about domestic drones promptly and to determine acceptable limitations on their use in an open and democratic manner, rather than through secretive working groups and industry-dominated research consortiums.