Impact on CAA staff
53. We heard concerns from various witnesses that
uncertainties over the timing and scope of the transfer of responsibilities
from the CAA to EASA were affecting CAA staff. The Society of
British Aerospace Companies argued that, as a result of the apparent
"mismatch" between the speed at which the CAA was reducing
its activities and the torpor with which EASA was expanding its
activities, CAA employees with considerable expertise were not
being recruited by EASA, and were therefore being lost from the
field.[81] Dr Graham
Braithwaite told us that uncertainty was inevitably demotivating
the CAA's workforce, and that a loss of talent had followed as
more secure jobs became available elsewhere. He suggested that
to remedy the situation the CAA needed to form a clearer view
of its future and the speed and scope of its transfer of responsibilities
to EASA.[82]
54. The CAA told us that its primary aim in relation
to staff affected by EASA's establishment had been to encourage
and assist them in obtaining jobs with EASA. It said that, thereafter,
its priority had been to ensure that it had the right balance
of staff to undertake its remaining regulatory work, while at
the same time seeking to minimise the risk of redundancies as
a consequence of the transfer of powers to EASA. It admitted,
however, that it had achieved only limited success in encouraging
staff transfers to EASA: of those who had left their posts in
the CAA due to a reduction in scope, 28% had taken up roles with
EASA, 33% had been redeployed to roles elsewhere in the CAA, 29%
had retired and 10% had resigned. It cited a number of reasons
for the apparent reluctance of its staff to transfer to EASA,
including the location of EASA's headquarters in Cologne and the
lack of employment opportunities for partners moving there, concerns
about the effectiveness of EASA's recruitment process and the
generally poor reputation of EASA.[83]
55. The CAA told us that it had been difficult to
maintain morale in areas where it had been forced to encourage
employees to pursue alternative jobs outside the area in which
they were currently employed. It had sought to improve morale
through "sensitive change management, open and frequent communication
and a supportive approach."[84]
An external assessment of the Safety Regulation Group carried
out in August 2005, as part of its Investors in People assessment,
found that employees who had experienced the most direct impact
from the transfer of work to EASA felt they had been "appropriately
informed and assisted", and believed the handling had been
"sensitive and pro-active."[85]
56. EASA recruits staff from all Member States and
told us that, in the area of certification, it had recruited the
majority of its experts from countries with a comparatively large
aviation industry, such as the UK. It admitted that initial recruitment
campaigns within the CAA on behalf of EASA had met with a poor
response, but said the situation had improved more recently. At
the time of writing, it employed 30 UK nationals out of a total
of 200 agents, most of whom had previously worked for the CAA.
It made clear that it was dedicated to recruiting more CAA staff
and explained that a working group co-chaired by the UK representative
on its Management Board was helping to monitor the transfer of
personnel.[86] The Minister
agreed that there were some signs of progress on the recruitment
of CAA staff by EASA and said that the Government was working
closely with EASA to make relocation to Cologne more attractive
to CAA staff. Efforts were also under way to resolve the problems
arising from the formal nature of qualifications required by EASA,
as this had previously precluded the recruitment of some highly-skilled
operators from the UK.[87]
57. We
are concerned by indications of low morale among CAA staff as
a result of uncertainties over the transfer of responsibilities
from the CAA to EASA, and by the associated loss of experienced
staff from the aviation regulation industry. We
acknowledge that the CAA's ability to manage the situation is
compromised by the problems within EASA itself and we commend
it for its sensitive and pro-active handling of the situation.
We recommend
that the CAA work with the Department for Transport to draw up
a detailed assessment of the speed and scope of the transfer of
responsibilities to EASA as soon as circumstances within EASA
allow, and that it should ensure that staff are kept fully informed
about this process. We are encouraged to hear that the situation
has improved in recent months, with more UK staff being recruited
by EASA.
39