Civil aviation safety
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Andrew, Stuart (Pudsey) (Con)
† Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)
† Chapman, Jenny (Darlington) (Lab)
† Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Donaldson, Mr Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)
† Gyimah, Mr Sam (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Jones, Graham (Hyndburn) (Lab)
† Kwarteng, Kwasi (Spelthorne) (Con)
† Marsden, Mr Gordon (Blackpool South) (Lab)
† Smith, Henry (Crawley) (Con)
† Sturdy, Julian (York Outer) (Con)
† Williams, Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
John-Paul Flaherty, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(6):
Davies, Geraint (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Hopkins, Kelvin (Luton North) (Lab)
European Committee A
Monday 14 October 2013
[John Robertson in the Chair]
Civil Aviation Authority
4.30 pm
The Chair: Mr Smith, I believe that you wish to make a brief statement about the decision to send the document to this Committee.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to do so, Mr Robertson, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It might help the Committee if I take a few moments to explain the background to the document and the reasons why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended it for debate.
Regulation 216/2008 deals with civil aviation safety, partly in the context of the Chicago convention. It established the European Aviation Safety Agency to assist the Commission in the development and implementation of legislative and non-legislative safety measures. In July, the Commission published a draft regulation setting flight and duty time limitation requirements for the crew of aircraft involved in commercial air transport. The proposal is a safety measure designed to protect crew from levels of fatigue that would affect their ability to carry out their duties safely; separate legislation already exists to set limits on working time for social reasons. The proposal is based on an opinion published by EASA in October 2012 and takes the form of an amendment to Commission regulation 965/2012, which established safety standards for air operations.
This matter had been the subject of a Transport Committee inquiry, so the European Scrutiny Committee, as allowed by Standing Orders, asked for an opinion on the Commission proposal from the Transport Committee; that came in the form of another report from that Committee in September. In the light of the Committee’s continued reservations about the Commission’s proposals and its suggestions to the Government on how matters might be improved, we recommended this debate to allow Members to examine the issues with the Minister.
The British Air Line Pilots Association lists concerns that the rules were put together without sufficient scientific input. In fact, not a single qualified medical or fatigue scientist was involved in drafting them: three scientists were asked to give a view of the proposal, but at a very late stage, and many of their recommendations have been ignored. It is not just pilots who have made these points: the Commission’s own scientists and two UK parliamentary Committees agree. Dr Alexander Gundel, a fatigue expert speaking at a hearing on the legislation in the European Parliament, said that supporting these rules would be
“voting against the opinion of scientific experts.”
The Transport Committee of this House has also expressed anxiety about the proposals, saying:
“we retain concerns over several areas, in particular the use of scientific evidence in developing the regulations and the arrangements for oversight and active management of the new regime.”
The European Transport Safety Council said:
“the proposals do not fully and properly reflect the scientific evidence that should underpin fatigue management. Nor do they fully incorporate the scientific evidence which EASA itself commissioned.”
The danger of pilot fatigue cannot be overstated. It has been responsible for 15% to 20% of all fatal air accidents globally, and it is a bigger problem than most realise. Even under the relative protection of the UK’s current standards, set out in “Civil Aviation Publication 371”, 56% of pilots report having fallen asleep on the flight deck, and 29% of those report waking up to the find the other pilot asleep. The American Federation Aviation Administration has recently tightened up its fatigue regulations, following the tragedy of Continental Connection flight 3407 in 2009. In contrast, the EU seems to be heading in the opposite direction.
I have some key questions, which I would be grateful if the Minister could address. Which scientific and medical experts have been—
The Chair: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that his opening statement should take no longer than five minutes? There will be lots of time for him to ask questions later.
Henry Smith: I apologise, Mr Robertson. If I have the opportunity to catch your eye later, I will certainly pose some questions.
To conclude my opening statement, I will just say that I fear this is yet another example of how an EU effort to standardise and harmonise conditions across Europe has led to a reduction in the high standards long established in the UK.
The Chair: Before I call the Minister, I should say that I will explain the proceedings as we go along for the benefit of those who have not previously sat on this type of Committee. The Minister will now make a statement, which should take no longer than 10 minutes, during which there can be no interventions.
4.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill): It is a pleasure, for the first time in my new role, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I note the work done by the Transport Committee in its latest report on the proposed implementation of rules on flight and duty time limitations for aircrews. I welcome the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee has referred the subject for debate.
Let me make it clear that the proposed European Commission regulation on flight time limitations is about improving aviation safety across Europe, maintaining and enshrining the high standards of safety that we already have in the UK under our guidance, and placing a new obligation on airlines explicitly to manage rotas to reduce the risk of fatigue in crews. Passengers should be in no doubt that operators based in other EU countries work to the same high standards that we have come to expect here.
The development of the proposed legislation has involved wide consultation with the aviation industry and aviation safety experts. As Committee members
will be aware, in 2006, the UK supported the adoption of EU legislation giving EASA responsibility for developing safety requirements for aircraft operations, including flight time limitations. The agency has fulfilled the remit it was given by the EU. It has fully involved all stakeholders in developing proposals and has carried out two full rounds of public consultation.On the basis of an EASA opinion, the European Commission issued a draft regulation, which was fully reviewed and discussed by member states’ technical experts in the relevant EU regulatory committee. In that committee, member states including the UK overwhelmingly supported the adoption of the regulation as a significant improvement on existing EU rules that would ensure a high level of safety across Europe.
The regulation is now subject to scrutiny by the EU Council and Parliament. I should stress that the Council cannot amend the draft regulation; it may only decide to oppose its adoption. The grounds on which the Council can oppose its adoption, as set out in Council decision 1999/468, are either that the regulation exceeds implementing powers provided by the EASA regulation or is incompatible with its aims, or that it does not respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. In assessing whether the regulation is safe and meets the objectives of the EASA regulation, the Government rely on expert advice from the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA has assured Ministers that the new flight time limitations are a considerable improvement on existing EU requirements and will not compromise the safety of UK airlines.
A key element of the regulation is that it places a requirement on airlines to consider the outcome of aircraft crews’ working hours. The regulation imposes a legal obligation—this is something new—on airlines to ensure that flight duty periods are planned in a way that keeps crew members sufficiently free from fatigue to operate safely in all circumstances. It will not be enough for airlines to rely on compliance with the limits, as is currently the case; they will have to demonstrate that fatigue has been appropriately addressed when rosters are planned. That is not simply a box-ticking exercise, which is how some critics described the previous arrangements.
When we hear stories about polls on pilot fatigue, we can say that the new directive will help to tackle pilot fatigue directly. Pilots should live up to their responsibilities and report fatigue-related concerns, so that an airline can use such testimonials to review their rotas. I was concerned to read some of the testimonials provided by BALPA, in which pilots said that they would not report fatigue for fear of reprisals. That should not be the atmosphere pertaining to safety in this important industry.
Associated EU legislation also sets detailed standards for regulatory oversight of airlines and provides additional regulatory tools, which will enable competent authorities to ensure that airlines meet their legal obligations. It is true that there are some differences between the flight duty and other limits set out in the regulation and the UK guidance used to supplement the current EU requirements, but many of the differences are minor and it is not the case that the UK guidance is always more restrictive than the new EU requirements. Despite what the press reported, there is no specific evidence to suggest that any of the limits set in the regulations are unsafe.
The regulation requires the European Aviation Safety Agency to conduct a continuous review of the effectiveness of the requirements and issue a report within three years of their becoming applicable. The review must involve scientific expertise and use operational data gathered by the member states. If the review identifies any shortcomings, the requirements will be adjusted accordingly.
Many services from UK airports are now conducted by airlines from other EU member states—indeed, some such airlines have a significant presence in the UK market. The new regulations will ensure that UK citizens enjoy the same high level of safety whichever EU airline they choose to fly with. They will also help to ensure that UK airlines are able to complete on a level playing field. I welcome the opportunity to debate the regulations today.
The Chair: We have until 5.30 for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that those should be brief and it is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask a related supplementary question. After that, we will move to the debate, when the Minister will move the motion and the Opposition spokesperson will have his chance to put his contribution.
4.42 pm
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab): It is a great pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate him on his promotion. I will keep my questions as brief as I can.
What independent assessment or scientific advice did the CAA take in respect of the EU Commission proposals? Will the Department for Transport use the gap between the passing of the legislation and its implementation, which could be up two years, to put in place a robust scientific study? Did his Department’s independent scientific adviser examine the proposals at any stage? What plans, if any, do Ministers have to press in the Council of Ministers for a far stronger scientific basis to EU regulations brought forward by EASA?
Mr Goodwill: The Government relies on advice from the CAA, the UK’s specialist aviation safety regulatory body, in determining the acceptability of all aviation safety implementing rules the European Commission proposes. The proposed rules on flight time limitations have been treated no differently.
I am sure that the shadow Minister is aware that three expert opinions were sought and up to 50 scientific studies were used in the consideration of the new rules. It is important to stress the significance of the experience of the operational use of regulations in different countries in the EU, and that experience has been brought to bear. This is not a scientific area where one can state empirically, “The answer is five.” There were a lot of opinions from different scientists, and I am sure the Select Committee took that on board. The CAA and its primary adviser, Dr Barbara Stone, formerly with QinetiQ, are the primary source of information. Dr Stone has been advising the CAA on implementation.
Regarding the two years before full implementation, the CAA will hold seminars early in the new year to manage the transition and, in particular, to support the industry in the way rotas and work are planned, which has not been done or been regulated this way before.
Mr Marsden: I put four questions to the Minister, and in my judgment he has half-answered only two of them. Will he engage specifically with my last two questions? If he is not able to do so now, will he provide a response either later in our debate today or subsequently in writing? Notwithstanding his references to Dr Stone, am I to take from what he has said that he has confirmed my concern that the CAA did not have any independent scientific assessment of the EU Commission proposal?
Mr Goodwill: The proposal took into account over 50 studies and the views of the three scientific experts who were engaged. I stress that the primary source of expertise within the CAA, which underlies the opinions it has expressed, is on the operational use of current regulations and the way the regulations would apply in the future. The CAA is satisfied that the regulations as proposed offer no diminution on current safety levels. One must look at the body of evidence in its entirety, not just at some opinions that may be based on limited data.
Henry Smith: The Department for Transport has said in the past that it will not be allowed under EU rules to set a different standard for the UK, but the EU Commission says that it can. Will the Minister clarify that difference of opinion?
The Department has also said that the new rules will provide for a level of safety equivalent to the UK’s existing standard, CAP 371. That being the case, will the Minister leave UK standards as they are now until such time as operational experience in countries with traditionally lower standards has shown that the new rules will work in reducing tiredness? Are there any specific areas in which he accepts we would see a reduction in safety standards compared with the standards under the UK’s CAP 371?
Mr Goodwill: The Commission has drawn attention to the flexibility requirements in article 14 of EASA basic regulation 216/2008, which allows member states to address safety concerns immediately or to derogate from the implementing rules, provided that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved. Any measure implemented or proposed by a member state under the provisions has to be approved by the Commission, acting on the basis of advice from EASA, and has to have the agreement of member states by qualified majority voting. If such a measure is adopted it becomes applicable across the EU.
Member states may introduce higher safety standards only to address safety deficiencies in implementing the rules. We do not believe that there are any safety deficiencies in implementing the rules, nor do we believe that it is likely that the Commission, EASA or other member states will endorse enhancements to the implementing rules that have just been agreed.
I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that there are two types of EU legislation: a regulation, which cannot be varied by member state, and a directive, which has to be transposed into national legislation. In matters of safety, it is important that we use a regulation so that there is no wriggle room that allows other member states not to implement the rules fully, and no opportunity for gold-plating that could affect the competitiveness of our own industry.
We have no plans for further scientific studies of the rules in the next two years. A review will be carried out by EASA within three years of the application of the rules.
There are areas in which I believe the rules will actually be augmented. There is a large number of improvements on the existing EU rules. Those include reducing night flight duty limits from 11 and three quarter hours to 11 hours, and expanding the definition of night flights. Stand-by at home will be limited to six hours and combined with maximum flight duty time. The combination of stand-by at the airport with flight duty will be capped at 16 hours. Total flight time in any 12 consecutive months will reduced from 1,300 hours to 1,000 hours. The weekly rest requirement will be increased by 12 hours twice a month. Additional rest will be required for schedules that disrupt crew members’ body clocks, for example, early starts and night flights. Airlines will be required to ensure that crew members receive initial and ongoing fatigue management training, which should help to reduce cases of fatigue.
I stress that very many of our constituents travel with airlines based in other EU member states, and we have a responsibility to ensure that those airlines adhere to the same high safety standards that we have come to expect and that have been included in this new regulation.
Henry Smith: The CAA previously said that it wanted a 100-hour duty limit over 14 days, but EASA has stuck with 110 hours. Will the Minister commit to using the safety enhancement powers to retain a 100-hour limit for the UK?
Mr Goodwill: There is no scientific evidence to support a 95-hour limit over 110 hours, and we have no powers to do that. The only powers that we would have, as I have already mentioned, would be to address immediate safety concerns. These are not flexible rules that we can mix and match; they are rules that should apply to all member states, and it is our duty to make sure that we approve them, to ensure high levels of safety are extended across the European Union.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): I am grateful, Mr Robertson, for the opportunity to speak in this Committee, even though I am not a member of it. Of course, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment.
The Minister has given a number of assurances, even suggesting that there is an improvement for pilots and safety, but some specific details suggest that that is not the case. For example, there will be no limit on the number of early starts, which usually require pilots to get up for work between 3 am and 5 am to report for duty at the airport between 5 am and 7 am. Because of the risk of cumulative tiredness, British pilots can do only three early starts in a row; after that they must either have a rest period or they can only do a flying duty that starts later. There is a diminution of standards in that example, and there is a number of others. Would the Minister care to comment?
Mr Goodwill: Regarding early starts, the CAA has been engaged in research with easyJet, a leading operator, looking at how early starts affect a pilot’s body clock. Indeed, having five early starts allows the pilot to adapt
better to their internal body clock. When combined with a good recovery time to allow rest, that has been shown to be a potentially positive move, rather than having mixed rosters, whereby people’s body clocks get very confused.Kelvin Hopkins: The suggestion is that there is to be no limit on the number of early starts, not five early starts. Another example is the suggestion that for long-haul flights there will be just two pilots—the captain and co-pilot—flying for up to 14 hours of duty. This will mean pilots flying from London to Los Angeles or Japan without enough rest during the flight to ensure they are alert for landing, or for there to be cover if one pilot becomes unwell. At the moment, three pilots are required for flights that require more than 11 hours and 45 minutes of duty, to enable each of those pilots to get sufficient rest to be fully alert when flying. That suggests there will be a significant diminution of standards on long-haul flights, when pilots might indeed get very tired.
Mr Goodwill: There is no scientific basis for the UK’s current practice of requiring augmented crews on certain long-haul flights. The flight duty period limits set by the regulation for one and two-sector flights are the same. Two-sector flights impose a higher work load than one-sector flights, as they involve an additional take-off and landing. It has not been suggested that two-sector flights can only be conducted safely with an augmented crew.
It is interesting to note that the UK is the only country that operates with three pilots on duty rosters of 12 and a half hours. In the UK, we do 14 hours without anyone having to leave the cabin to rest on single-sector flights. So sleep is not a normal occurrence on these flights, and generally we believe that it is safe to operate these flights with two pilots, as all other EU countries do and as many other countries do around the world.
Kelvin Hopkins: I could go through a catalogue of other changes that suggest that standards are definitely being reduced, with not only a deleterious effect on conditions for pilots but some increased risk for passengers. However, it strikes me that, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, this change is being driven by commercial concerns and not by safety concerns. It is about making profits for airlines. Obviously, if one country reduces standards they can cut costs and compete unfairly with other countries. Therefore, we are all being dragged down together. Is this proposal being driven primarily by commercial concerns?
Mr Goodwill: I assure the hon. Gentleman, as my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), has already said, that safety is the primary objective of these rules. Commercial considerations can never overrule or countermand the requirements of safety.
The Chair: If no more Members wish to ask questions, we will proceed to the debate on the motion. I expect to call the Minister to sum up no later than 6.45 for a 7 o’clock finish.
4.56 pm
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 12864/13, a draft Commission Regulation (EU) No /...of XXX amending Regulation (EU) No.965/2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council; notes that the Government recognises the importance of managing crew fatigue to support civil aviation safety; supports the Government's view that the measures will establish safety improvements across the European Union and maintain safety in the UK; and further supports the Government's view that the measures respect subsidiarity principles and help to deliver a level playing field across the EU.
I look forward to hearing the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members, and responding to them as I sum up.
4.56 pm
Mr Marsden: I welcome the Minister to his place, and I am pleased to be taking my place in the Opposition Front-Bench transport team.
I have not had the privilege of being a Minister of the Crown, but I served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to three Ministers of the Crown in the previous Administration, and I have also served on a couple of Select Committees. That is why I have already posed some specific questions about the proposals that are before us. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North for doing so as well. The decisions of Ministers of the Crown should be made on the basis of evidence-driven policy, especially on issues that relate to the safety of the public. From what I have heard today, the jury is most definitely out on that.
I do not believe that we should pass this legislation or send it on a fair wind to the House as a whole without further questions and scrutiny, especially as there have been strong divisions in the European Parliament and its Transport Committee. Hon. Members would not have guessed from what the Minister said that this was a controversial issue in the European Parliament.
Mr Goodwill: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He is well aware that this is a co-decision matter, so the European Parliament has a strong role, but is he aware that the compromise hammered out at the plenary session was agreeable to not only the Christian Democrats and the Conservatives, but the Socialists, with whom his Labour colleagues sit?
Mr Marsden: I have enormous respect—as I am sure the Minister has—for his confrères in the European Parliament. However, the truth is that during the vote in the European Parliament there were split opinions on all sides. I gather that members of the Minister’s own party group either abstained or voted against this issue.
However, that is not what we are here to discuss today. We are here to discuss the process in this Parliament. I am merely making the point that this is a controversial process—the European Parliament Transport Committee originally rejected the proposals by 21 votes to 13, and they got through the European Parliament only after a significant vote against, a significant number of abstentions, and what some observers described as “horse trading”. It is therefore incumbent upon us—as the hon. Member for Crawley said in his excellent summary of the reasons why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended the proposals for debate—to discuss them.
My predecessors on the Front Bench—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—have expressed concerns about the proposals. We have already heard that the degree of supportive independent, scientific—I emphasise the word scientific—comment on this procedure has been thin. The European Pilots Association said it was
“A sad day for European flight safety”.
The Minister has already mentioned BALPA, and BALPA’s concern about the process has been so significant that it has already made a complaint to the EU ombudsman about maladministration. The fact remains—the Minister cannot get away from it—that every time this issue has been looked at by legislators or others in detail, whether in the UK Parliament or in the European one, they have been jittery or queasy about it.
I would like to quote briefly from what was said by the Select Committee on Transport, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). Its report was printed only on 9 September and, in the summary, it says that despite the Commission’s draft regulation representing an improvement on the EASA proposal,
“we retain concerns over several areas, in particular the use of scientific evidence in developing the regulations and the arrangements for oversight and active management of the new regime.”
The Committee also makes the point that the CAA itself
“has previously expressed reservations about the proposed flight duty period at night. The scientific advice given to EASA has been clear in recommending that an 11-hour flight duty period at night is too long and should be limited to 10 hours. In our view this advice should be adhered to.”
It was not adhered to, Mr Robertson, as you have already heard the Minister say. The report says:
“We are disappointed that the Government chose not to press for a lower limit for the flight duty period at night in accordance with the scientific evidence on this matter.”
Finally, the Committee says that
“there are legitimate concerns that while the regulations may lead to safety improvements elsewhere, there may be a diminution of standards in the UK—where the current regulatory regime is favoured by crew and pilot representatives.”
Then, of course, there are some very specific points about this matter, all of which have been well rehearsed and put forward by BALPA. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North cited one or two of them. Again, there is a great list of them, but I shall refer just to three. There is the fact that, under the current UK safety standard, because of the risk of cumulative tiredness, British pilots can do only three early starts in a row. We have heard that there will be no limit on the number of early starts, which usually require pilots to get up for work between 3 am and 5 am to report for duty at the airport. The issue of three pilots being required for flights under the current UK standard but only two under the EU flight safety one has also been referred to. Finally, there is the broader issue of whether it is sensible to put so much emphasis on the role of airline managers. At the moment, only the aircraft captain can extend the hours of the crew and they are required by law to take the—
5.3 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.17 pm
Mr Marsden: As I was saying, BALPA has considerable concerns about these proposals, not least the extended use of fatigue risk management, a process whereby airlines use science to convince the regulator that it is safe to operate beyond what the hard rules say is possible. Both the CAA and EASA see an increased role for Fatigue Risk Management Systems under the new rules. At the same time, research from University college London shows that fatigue remains a major issue in one airline that uses FRMS. In that airline, 45% of pilots had suffered from significant fatigue, and one in five reported that their abilities had been compromised in-flight by fatigue more than once a week.
BALPA has conducted its own testimonial process on flight time limitations and those testimonials were submitted on the condition of anonymity, so it is not an airline-specific problem; it is a safety concern across the industry. I recommend to the Minister or at least to his officials that they do a detailed survey of the testimonials because, speaking as a lay person—I think this is probably true of most members of the Committee—I found them disturbing and of considerable concern. I could quote from several, but I will do so from one, which says:
“I am a short haul Captain and have been flying for 15 years. I reckon I have had the ‘nodding dog’ feeling of being unable to keep my eyes open on at least 5 occasions. Sometimes during the climb out…I have found myself missing radio calls a couple of times too, as I’d have nodded off but not on controlled rest.”
Politicians work long hours and fatigue often builds up. I am sure we have all experienced the nodding-dog syndrome on the sofa late at night watching television—perhaps “Newsnight”—but for us it does not matter. We just jerk back, bang our head on the back of the sofa, and that is it. It is not the same if someone is piloting an aeroplane.
These are specific points and despite the enormous emphasis—this is curious given everything that is going on in the Government at the moment—on Europe, the issue is not just for the European Union or about the implications for it. Some European Union countries may have higher standards as a result of the measure, but I have yet to hear any convincing evidence here today that that will apply to us in this country. We have to think about not only the position in the European Union, but our own international standing as an aviation nation. Many countries around the world have traditionally looked up to the UK to deliver the gold standard on regulations, and many have moulded their regulations accordingly. If there is any sense that we are not going to repeat the good standards of CAP 371—good standards that nevertheless produce some of the experiences that have been detailed—and that we are not going to go the extra mile on safety, not only will our reputation suffer, but there will be concerns internationally about safety standards.
The Government have the ability, even with the regulation, to go the extra mile. The hon. Member for Crawley mentioned it in his question to the Minister about the European Union Transport Commissioner,
Siim Kallas. I have a copy of what Mr Kallas said in the debate. It was one of the things that persuaded the waverers to support the proposal. The Commissioner said:“As regards recital 5 of the proposed Commission regulation, Member States may apply and enforce on their operators provisions of a more protective nature than those in the Regulation providing that the Member State’s request has been processed in accordance with the required procedures and that an equivalent level of safety is met or exceeded.”
It was disappointing to hear the Minister say in his response to the Member for Crawley that the Govt had no intention of doing that or of trying to match the current CAP 371. It is extremely disappointing—I wait with bated breath to hear the Minister’s answer to my previous two questions—to hear that, despite all the concerns, they have no plans for any further scientific investigations over the next three years.
It has been argued that the standards as a package add up to a balance of the situation that we are going to face in future. However, what matters is how they stand up at the sharpest moment in the sharpest set of difficulties at the end of the 22 hours, at the moment when a pilot is at their most tired. Frankly, I do not think that members of the Committee can be convinced about that.
In many ways, I would argue that the Government have got the worst of both worlds on the issue. They are not doing enough to defend our international reputation on safety. At the same time, because of their general failure to engage within the EU, they have been unable to influence things in the Commission or in Parliament. As I said, the situation is worrying.
The Government could try to engage their existing scientific advisers to examine the proposals. They could and should use the period between the passage of the proposal and its implementation to put in place a robust series of examinations. They could and should use the new ruling by the EU Commissioner to ensure that we upgrade the proposals to match as closely as possible the existing standards and guidance of CAP 371, which are so well recognised internationally.
Finally, the CAA could and should work towards having an independent standing scientific panel or, at the very least, use proper ad hoc experts and independent advice. Again, I was somewhat dismayed to hear, despite what the Minister said, that there was no evidence that the CAA had done so in this case. When one takes that with the complacency that I and many others believe the EASA has shown in putting more responsibility on airlines to manage fatigue—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North has already referred to some of the commercial pressures in that circumstance—it is a worrying situation.
It is said that extreme examples, such as those cited, would not occur in reality. In legislation of any sort, however, we have to plan for the worst scenarios and not just assume the best. The worst scenarios are in terms of human temperament, human error and commercial pressure. If something is allowed within the new regulations, the possibility is that, at some point, that will happen. The Government should challenge that culture of complacency, not collude with it. The travelling public from these shores, whether British, European or international, deserve better than this.
After the Brighton bombing, the IRA famously said,
“we only have to be lucky once; you will have to be lucky always.”
If one applies that principle to the risk-benefit in this area, given what I said about what happens at the sharp end and what those testimonials show, we cannot afford to have a situation where we could be unlucky once. For those reasons, the Opposition will not support the proposals.
5.26 pm
Kelvin Hopkins: It is a great pleasure to speak in this important debate. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South on his appointment, but also on his excellent speech, with which I agree wholeheartedly. Indeed, my speech will be short because he has said what needed to be said.
I had the good fortune to be briefed at length by representatives of BALPA a few weeks ago. I was seriously concerned, sufficiently so to come to the Committee and make my points as a non-member, some of which I have made in questions already. I am surprised that the Minister seems to be giving unqualified support to what the EU is doing—it sounded like enthusiasm. Given the weight of evidence against these regulations, I am surprised that there was not just a note of concern in his remarks.
I have before me a dossier of pilot fatigue testimonials. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South read out one of them, but there are a couple of dozen, all of which should be read by members of the Committee, and indeed by the Government, before they agree to these changes. Those testimonials are worrying and, as my hon. Friend says, when a pilot is flying an aeroplane, they cannot afford to be wrong once. That is completely unacceptable. Flying an aeroplane is a difficult job, with immense responsibility, and no doubt all of us have experienced rough landings in difficult weather and so on. If a pilot lacks concentration at a time like that, there is always a risk of a serious accident. One wants to ensure that pilots are alert and on top of their game when dealing with difficult conditions. I therefore support my hon. Friend’s comments.
Another concern is that the Civil Aviation Authority, which in the past has always been rigorous in its defence of safety, now seems to have—I can only suggest—bowed to commercial pressures, which for a regulatory organisation such as that is completely unacceptable. Others have expressed worries about the CAA’s stance, so I hope that the Government will listen to others and press the CAA to ensure that it maintains its tradition of unbiased commitment to safety.
I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South. The Government ought to go to the European Council and say that they will not accept these regulations. Indeed, they could make positive suggestions. As my hon. Friend said, British safety standards have sometimes been considered as the gold standard. Why could we not suggest, if they want to harmonise across Europe, that the British standards as they stand are adopted as the minimum standards? If others want to improve on them, that is fine. If the British standards were used as the minimum, they could work from there, instead of trying to level down. Some countries will no doubt be levelling up, while our aviation industry is forced to level down.
I used to serve on the TUC transport committee years ago and safety was a great concern in transport even then, some decades ago. BALPA was a member of
the TUC transport committee at that time. I also represent Luton North, where there are a number of aviation workers. The airport is in Luton South, but I represent aviation workers, who are obviously concerned about these changes.I want to ensure that the Government are aware that many of us are seriously worried about the proposed changes. We want to retain at least the safety standards that we currently have, and possibly even improve on them where necessary, to ensure that everyone is safe in the air.
5.31 pm
Mr Goodwill: There has been a full debate on the issue of flight time limitations, not just here today but since the European Aviation Safety Agency first consulted on the issue in 2010. It is clear that, as rules on flight time limitations have to provide for a wide range of operational scenarios, they need to be quite complex. That is also true of the existing UK rules. I believe that it is through that complexity that some misunderstanding of the proposals has arisen, and why there has been such a debate. It is not possible to look at elements of the rules in isolation to determine the level of protection against fatigue that they provide. Rather, we need to consider how the whole package of measures fits together to get a true assessment of the level of protection.
This is an important matter and we welcome BALPA’s engagement on the issue, as well as the scrutiny provided by the Transport Committee and this debate. This supplements the high level of scrutiny of the proposals by EASA, the UK Civil Aviation Authority, the European Commission and the European Parliament. We have been engaged in all those debates on the rules and, as a result, we are confident that they will provide a high level of safety and will not compromise safety for UK airlines and their crews.
I would like to touch briefly on some of the points made by hon. Members in the debate. The hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned that his colleagues in the European Parliament had voted in different ways. I would gently point out to him that Brian Simpson MEP, who chairs the Transport Committee in the European Parliament—a committee that had expressed reservations —was fully in support of the compromise agreement, and now supports these measures. It is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman has perhaps been swayed more by comments in newspapers such as The Daily Mail than by his own colleagues in the European Parliament, who have looked at the proposals in the round.
Mr Marsden: There is an old saying about speaker’s notes: when one’s argument is weak, one should shout like mad. The Minister has not shouted like mad, but he has brought in an absurd argument. It is not just The Daily Mail but the whole gamut of the national media that has commented on this. If the Minister is not aware of that, I suggest he consults his press cuttings a bit more carefully. Frankly, if he is going to start his period in office with references such as that, he ought to follow his argument to its logical conclusion and attack most of the national press.
Mr Goodwill: I will not be drawn into following that rather appealing suggestion, except to say that when I read the press clippings, particularly in newspapers such as The Daily Mail, they frightened me to death. Having read that coverage, particularly the suggestion that pilots were regularly on duty for 22 hours, I thought that that was something we really ought to oppose. However, having looked in more depth at the overall package, I am satisfied that safety will not be compromised by these arrangements. I also appreciate that some of the objections to the proposal in the European Parliament might have come from commercial considerations in other member states that would have to tighten their rules to bring them up to the standards that we are going to impose.
Many Members have expressed concern about the engagement with science. Some scientists have offered opinions on aspects of the rules, but they are not based on empirical evidence. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that any of the proposed limits are unsafe, and the duty limits have to be considered within the overall requirements. On the evidence regarding safety, the rules on safety are complex and the requirements need to be studied as a package, not as individual items selected at random.
Further, there is an overall requirement on airlines to manage fatigue for their crews, which is the single most important new aspect of the proposals. The evidence must therefore consider the whole package. EASA considered a range of scientific evidence. The CAA—our UK safety expert—has considered the whole package, and it is satisfied that the new rules will maintain the UK’s safety standards and improve standards across Europe. I must point out that the CAA is independent and will not be bowed by commercial considerations; safety is the only consideration that it must take into account.
Mr Marsden: For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I made no suggestion whatever that the CAA was going to be influenced by commercial considerations. However, I did make the point that it did not appear, on this occasion, to have taken independent scientific advice. I made the further point that there was a case for the CAA more broadly having regular access to such scientific advice.
Mr Goodwill: The CAA has a wealth of experience in dealing with reports of fatigue and other reports, and it is certainly in the best position to judge the regulations. In terms of an organisation being judged as unimpeachable, the CAA is one in which we can have every confidence.
This is possibly not a matter for debate today, but we need to have a wider debate on fatigue. For example, cabin crew, who operate the same work rosters as the crew on the flight deck, do not suffer from fatigue. It might be the case that we are now making the flight deck a place where pilots do not have enough to do to keep themselves occupied. We might need to look at how we can maintain an environment on the flight deck that actually stimulates the crew and keeps them alert.
Similarly, in regard to the responsibility to manage fatigue differently, commutes to work can make a difference. In my village, for example, there is an airline pilot who has recently retired from working for one of our major carriers. He had a 250-mile commute to Heathrow.
Generally, he would travel down the night before, but occasionally he would travel down and fly the same day. That would be likely to contribute to fatigue in a way that the airlines might not be fully aware of.The hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned early starts. He said pilots could be forced to work up to seven early starts in a row and suggested that that could be dangerous because of cumulative fatigue. Although the regulations do not place a limit on the number of early starts, they require operators actively to monitor and manage flight duty periods that fall within the early duty definition. That will ensure that such duties are conducted safely. Conversely, it is known that moving between early and late starts can cause fatigue. We therefore view the removal of limits on early starts as a positive development.
As we move towards the implementation of the regulations, it is vital that the CAA and the airlines work together to develop effective fatigue risk management—the new aspect that is being introduced—and look into the issue of fatigue not being reported, which is a matter of great concern. It should not be the case, as some of the testimonials stated, that pilots do not report fatigue because they feel they might be victimised or dealt with in a certain way by the airline. It is vital for the safe operation of airlines that crew members can safely report any issue, including those relating to fatigue.
I was a little disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the Government no longer had influence in the EU. The new European Conservatives and Reformists Group, on which the British Conservatives sit in the European Parliament, has significant influence in its own right and is working constructively with other groups. Indeed, when I attended the EU Transport Council in Luxembourg last Thursday, I did not see any evidence of colleagues in the Council snubbing me because we had moved to a different group in the European Parliament.
The hon. Member for Luton North drew the Committee’s attention to the testimonials. Some that I read gave me cause for concern, but such concerns would be addressed by the fatigue management that needs to be put in place. I was also somewhat heartened by a testimonial from one pilot who said that, in 11 years’ flying, there had been only three occasions when he had awoken on the flight deck to find the other pilot asleep. We must not blow this out of proportion. It should not be happening, but it is not happening as regularly as some newspaper coverage would have us believe.
Kelvin Hopkins: Those are rare examples, but they suggest that three pilots are indeed necessary on long flights, such as from Heathrow to California, which have three pilots at the moment.
Mr Goodwill: I have already touched on the issue of having two pilots as opposed to three, and we certainly do not believe that that would pose any risk to safety. Indeed, the majority of operators run such flights with two pilots rather than three.
In conclusion, the Government support the EU flight time limitation regulation, which, as we have heard, has been subject to high levels of scrutiny. The rules adopted under the regulation place a range of safety requirements on airlines. Furthermore, they place an explicit legal obligation on airlines actively to manage and address fatigue in their operations. The Civil Aviation Authority is the expert organisation that considers safety regulations in aviation, and it has been working, and will continue to work, with airlines to support them in preparing for the introduction of the regulation. The CAA supports the proposed flight time limitation regulation, which will maintain high safety standards in the UK and improve aviation safety across Europe.
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 5.
AYES
NOES
Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 12864/13, a draft Commission Regulation (EU) No .../... of XXX amending Regulation (EU) No. 965/2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council; notes that the Government recognises the importance of managing crew fatigue to support civil aviation safety; supports the Government’s view that the measures will establish safety improvements across the European Union and maintain safety in the UK; and further supports the Government’s view that the measures respect subsidiarity principles and help to deliver a level playing field across the EU.—(Mr Goodwill . )