Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 21 October 2025. They set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of unmanned or uncrewed aircraft systems—referred to henceforth as UAS—which includes drones and model aircraft. These regulations will ensure that the regulatory requirements remain enforceable and that operators and pilots of UAS remain subject to the appropriate penalties where they fail to comply with the regulatory framework.

Noble Lords will wish to know that the draft regulations have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not have any comments on them and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had one comment. It asked how awareness and understanding of the regulations will be improved. My department has since responded to this by advising that the Civil Aviation Authority, or CAA, has launched a communications campaign to improve the awareness of the regulations. Activities include emailing all registered drone users—roughly 500,000 operators—promotion via Google advertisements, issuing communication on social media with paid promotion to reach specific audiences, and using other communication channels to spread awareness.

I will provide some background information about these regulations. My department commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to review the regulatory framework for UAS. It carried out a public consultation for this purpose. The consultation set out proposals to simplify regulation, improve education for users of UAS, improve safety and security, and consider options for support for the sector during the transition to the new regulations. The CAA worked closely with government, industry and law enforcement partners in developing a number of policy recommendations.

Together with the regulatory updates made through the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, laid in this House on 21 October, this instrument will implement the CAA’s recommendations, supporting a more future-proof, enforceable and robust UAS regulatory regime in the United Kingdom. The draft regulations will revoke and replace existing offences for breaches of the UAS regulatory requirements, ensuring that the offences remain enforceable and facilitating the enforcement of new requirements. The instrument also makes consequential amendments to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 and the Police Act 1997.

The draft regulations set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of UAS as set out in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft, which I will refer to as the “implementing regulation” for short. This is an EU regulation that was directly applicable in the UK prior to exiting the European Union. Following that exit, the regulation was retained in an amended form in the UK and has subsequently been further amended. This now forms part of assimilated law in the United Kingdom.

The implementing regulation is amended by the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025 to update the rules on UAS, simplifying the regulatory regime and ensuring a safe and secure airspace. The implementing regulation establishes a framework for the operation of UAS to ensure that they are used safely and regulated proportionately. In this framework are three risk-based categories of operation: “open”, or low-risk operations; “specific”, or those with a greater level of risk than the open category; and “certified”, or the highest-risk operations. The implementing regulation, among other things, includes requirements for registration and competency testing. It also provides for model aircraft operations in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations under a bespoke authorisation.

The offences in this instrument largely replicate offences currently set out in the Air Navigation Order 2016, which I will refer to as the ANO 2016 for short. The draft regulations also provide for penalties for these offences, largely replicating the penalty provisions in the ANO 2016. Owing to the amendments made by the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, it is necessary to revise the offences by removing them from the ANO 2016 and remaking them in this instrument.

These regulations will ensure that the rules for drones and model aircrafts are safer and clearer for current and future use. I commend them to the Grand Committee.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am flattered that I am considered such a threat, on my own, to the passage of government legislation that I have to be faced by not only a Minister but two Whips at the same time, in addition to a team of very helpful civil servants at the back.

Broadly speaking, we support these regulations. It is a curiosity both that we support this statutory instrument and that the regulations are made under the negative procedure, so we do not actually see them. However, the criminal offences flowing from the regulations are made under the affirmative process, so we see only part of the process here in front of us today. I am sure that it is correct but it seems slightly curious, because it might have been better for everyone if the whole picture had been presented and we understood both the regulations and the criminal offences that flowed from them as part of one sweep. However, in general, we are in favour of them.

I will take up the point about communicating these very detailed regulations to those who might be caught by them, especially to those who might be caught by the criminal offences that flow from them. The Minister referred to that in his opening remarks. Surely it is the case that drones and unmanned flying things are becoming ever more popular and more widespread—and not only in the leisure sector but, I hope, in the commercial sector, because they have the potential to add great efficiency in the world of logistics, thereby benefiting us all and helping the economy to run more smoothly and prosperously. Therefore, it is terribly important that these regulations are not overly onerous, that it is possible to comply with them without being an expert or having a lawyer at your side everywhere you go, and that they are properly communicated.

Although I hear that the Civil Aviation Authority has written an email to 500,000 people, I hope that the Government do not feel that their responsibility for communicating these regulations and their consequences is discharged simply by that. This is not a responsibility that they can offload on to the CAA and imagine that everything has been done. It is the Government’s responsibility; they are the lawmakers, so to speak, and the enforcers of the law, so they need to make sure that this is being done properly, repeatedly and extensively, so that those who are affected understand it.

The only other point I will make is that this is an amendment to EU-assimilated legislation. It departs from that legislation to some extent, but in a very modest way as I understand it. It is part of a pattern whereby the Government are taking existing EU law and, to a large extent, cutting and pasting it into British law. Not only is that unimaginative but it fails to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that Brexit has created for our economic growth, including the opportunities we have for freer trade, and so forth, around the world.

I hope that, when the Government come back with similar regulations in similar circumstances in the future, we have that imagination and sense of purpose that shows that we have regulations that work for Britain and not simply for Romania or whatever other country may have been involved in drafting those from which these are essentially derived. Otherwise, with those caveats, we tend to support this statutory instrument.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his consideration of these draft regulations. I will respond to the two substantive points he made.

He is absolutely right that this needs to be communicated properly, because the use of drones—both for recreational purposes and, increasingly, for commercial purposes—is becoming very important in the United Kingdom. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to some further details on the consultation in 2023 and 2024, which received 3,500 responses. The respondents included recreational and commercial UAS operators, manufacturers, service providers and aviation sector organisations. We believe that that is a considerable response that shows the interest in the effective and lawful use of drones. The consultation tested support for a broad package of proposals, and the feedback to the consultation formed the basis for the final policy recommendations.

The noble Lord is absolutely right that it is important that drone users are very much aware of the rules and regulations for their use. I said what activity had been carried out by the Government, but, in support of that, I add that the Civil Aviation Authority also updated the drone code and flyer ID test on 22 September this year. The reason was that that was ahead of the peak renewals period for pilots needing to retake the online test. That seems to be a good thing to do because someone taking the online test should be aware of the up-to-date regulations and the penalties for failing to comply with them.

On the alignment with the European Union, I modestly disagree with the noble Lord opposite, because the regulation does diverge from the European Union, but only where it is important to do so—either to improve our national security or to use our limited airspace better. The divergence is there to benefit the UK overall and to support our ambition to lead globally on UAS regulation, while still enabling our British aviation industry to trade internationally with other nations. With that, I commend these regulations to the Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.