Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025.

My Lords, the UK’s airspace is a vital piece of our national infrastructure that is essential to economic growth, connectivity and national resilience. Last year, there were more than 2.4 million flights using UK airspace, but despite a significant rise in air traffic demand, the structure of our airspace has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s, when there were around 200,000 flights a year. This means that today’s flight paths remain largely based on a system that relies on a network of outdated ground-based navigation beacons. As a result, aircraft today fly less efficient routes and are unable to take advantage of modern aircraft technology and performance. This leads to increased fuel consumption, a greater risk of delays and, as a result, higher carbon emissions. The National Air Traffic Service—NATS—has estimated that, without modernisation, by 2040 one in five flights could face delays of more than 45 minutes.

A plan to fix this has been set out by the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority—the CAA—in the form of the airspace modernisation strategy. The regulations being considered today are one part of enabling that plan to happen. Modernised airspace will enable greater capacity in the air, improve resilience to disruption and help UK aviation to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The draft regulations will be made under powers conferred by the Transport Act 2000. Under that Act, the Secretary of State may modify prescribed terms in an air traffic services licence. This instrument designates as prescribed any term specifying air traffic services authorised under a licence and any term specifying the area in which those services may be provided. In practice, this will allow the Secretary of State to modify the terms in the air traffic services licence granted to NATS (En Route) plc, known as NERL, in order to create and fund a new UK airspace design service, or UKADS for short.

The UKADS, provided by NERL, will therefore be key to the delivery of the strategy. It will act as a single guiding mind to deliver a holistic and modernised airspace design, facilitating quicker, quieter flights with lower emissions for the benefit of those who use and are affected by UK airspace.

Initially, the UKADS will focus on airspace changes around London—the most complex and congested airspace in the UK, and where the benefits of modernisation will be greatest. The UKADS will be charged with delivering a co-ordinated and efficient airspace design for the whole London region. That will include the airspace design that is needed to enable a third runway at Heathrow to be operated, but the UKADS is needed whether there is a third runway or not.

I should add that airspace modernisation is about better managing our airspace, not seeking permission for new flights. The number of flights operating from UK airports, including those facilitated by a new runway, is determined not by modernisation but rather through the planning process.

The UKADS will develop airspace change proposals following the CAA’s CAP1616 airspace change process, as other sponsors of airspace changes do today. This includes requirements to consult those affected by airspace change and consider their views before final decisions are made. The UKADS will work closely with airports, which know and understand their local communities, to do this. One of the advantages that the UKADS can bring is ensuring that information is presented to people clearly and consistently.

The UKADS will be funded through a new UK airspace design charge, which will primarily be paid by commercial airlines, in line with the “user pays” principle. The cost is expected to be small compared with existing charges; ultimately, airlines and consumers could benefit from lower costs overall due to reduced fuel burn. This charge will also enable support for airports outside London as it will finance a UK airspace design support fund. This fund will be available to support the eligible costs of airspace change sponsors which are not within the initial geographic scope of the UKADS. This will help unlock the benefits of modernised airspace across the whole of the UK.

Provided this instrument is approved and comes into force, it will enable a series of important next steps. The Secretary of State will consult on modifications to the terms of NERL’s licence, in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 11A of the Transport Act 2000. The CAA will undertake its own, separate consultation on the changes to the conditions of NERL’s licence, following the statutory requirements laid out in the same section of the Act. The combined result of those changes, if adopted following consultation, will be to authorise and require NERL to provide the UKADS, and enable NERL to charge for doing so.

In conclusion, airspace modernisation is not just a technical upgrade; it is a national strategic necessity to ensure our skies remain safe, sustainable and capable of supporting the UK’s future prosperity and innovation. These regulations will enable the UKADS to deliver the benefits of airspace modernisation and ensure that the UK continues to be a global leader in aviation for decades to come. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.

My Lords, in the new spirit in the House of declarations of interests, I declare mine at the outset. I do so as a private pilot, a former director of Newcastle airport and the author of an investigation into lower airspace, which was brought about at the request of the then Transport Secretary Sir Grant Shapps. It was primarily to do with lower airspace, but it highlighted a number of things.

I will not speak for long, but I want to ask the Minister a few questions. I welcome very much what is being proposed, but I wonder to what extent it can be delivered. It is extremely complicated because it deals with a very complicated situation in relation not only to lower airspace but to upper airspace, the whole area of control zones around airports and the historic position of airports themselves as sponsors of changes to airspace. This has always been an area of great concern, particularly to general aviation, which is rather more random in its representation. Unlike the airports—which have their own clear bodies to represent them and the institution—airlines and others, general aviation is a bit more haphazard and therefore in need of protection, if I may put it that way, from government.

These proposed changes have enormous implications for those involved in general aviation—and business aviation too—first, by removing individual effort and the sponsors that exist currently, particularly the airports themselves. I hope that there will be sufficient objectivity in the decisions that are taken to maintain GA’s position in any redesign mechanism. There have been concerns over the years that, because of the sponsorship by airports and their own determination to hold on to airspace and control zones for their own commercial benefit as well as—they claim—for safety and security, we have seen a diminution in parts of the country of the convenience and ability of general aviation to operate.

In many ways, it is quite extraordinary that no single organisation in the UK is currently responsible for creating a modern and integrated airspace design. As we have heard, across the country, airspace change proposals are sponsored by individual bodies—usually airports or air navigation service providers—and, in more congested areas, such as London, there are multiple overlapping ACPs, each with a separate sponsor.

Aviation law is governed by an international system of rules set by the International Civil Aviation Organization. In many ICAO contracting states there is one entity, usually a public body, responsible for airspace planning and design; that same body is also responsible for air traffic services and air navigation. This clearly makes it much easier to deliver airspace change that benefits the whole state’s airspace than is currently possible in the UK.

We therefore welcome this SI, which changes licensing rules to allow a single new UK airspace design service to be created and to oversee both airspace modernisation and changes to use of airspace. We welcome steps to better co-ordinate a disjointed system of managing airspace but, of course, we will hold the Government to account to ensure that modernisation works for all our communities and for our environment. It is important to bring airspace into the 21st century, to deliver flight paths that cut emissions and to ensure that journeys are quicker, quieter and cleaner. However, with any changes there will be winners and losers. The Government must recognise this and work with communities as airspace is modernised—not least in congested areas, such as London.

We must also ensure that airspace modernisation reflects the needs of our communities, recognising the impact that noise and air pollution can have on people and on nature. I think in particular of residents in Richmond and other west London boroughs who suffer greatly because of flights relating to Heathrow and are fearful of any changes. I ask the Minister: how do the Government plan to ensure that the new UK airspace design service works openly and transparently with communities that are impacted by aviation, genuinely engages and consults, and is a trusted, independent voice in this area, because there is a lot of suspicion in many communities? Also, will this new organisation be subject to freedom of information legislation?

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.