Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing
(12 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Williams. Before you start proceedings, can I raise a couple of questions? I am not sure what we do in the event of not everybody who indicated that they wanted to speak in this debate turning up. The Select Committee on Transport has scheduled two important debates for this afternoon. Does the Chair have any discretion to delay the start of proceedings to ensure that those who want and are expected to participate have the opportunity to do so? Previously, when I was a Minister, if I had been at a debate and there was nobody in attendance, or if someone to whom I had spoken in the Lobby and who had indicated that they wanted to speak was not there, I would obviously have wanted to ensure that they had a chance to speak.
What are the rules and protocols of the House in the Standing Orders? We would not want anyone to miss the opening speech from the distinguished Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), ably supported by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). The Transport Committee has spent a lot of time on the two reports. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith and Pentland—or is it just Edinburgh and Leith?
Jim Fitzpatrick
My apologies. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) clearly has something to say in the debate, and it is important that everybody who wants to speak has the chance to listen to the opening speeches. Without an opening speech from the Transport Committee Chair to set the context for this debate—the Opposition have a few things that we would like to say, although the reports deal comprehensively with the issues, and the Government’s response is equally detailed—it would be helpful if you could advise us, Mr Williams, how we might proceed so that everybody who wants to participate can do so.
Hywel Williams (in the Chair)
Thank you for that point of order, Mr Fitzpatrick. I think we have shown a degree of forbearance. It puts us in a difficult position if we have neither a Whip nor a Minister, but I am advised that we may proceed, and I think that we had better, given that we have hon. Members here who are anxious to contribute to the debate. I will take advice during the debate, and if we can start, we will see how we might stop as well, which might be something of a problem. I call Mrs Ellman.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I am pleased to present two Transport Committee reports for debate. Both are on aviation, and although they deal with complicated matters, they are vital to the public. The first debate is on the reform of Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing, or ATOL.
Mark Lazarowicz
Before my hon. Friend proceeds, does she agree that, although we are discussing the first report, it is particularly important that we have a Minister here to hear what is said about the second report? Important negotiations are going on in Europe about flight times, and many of us have constituents working in the industry who have contacted us about the matter. It would be amazing if we did not have the opportunity for a Government response on this important topic.
Mrs Ellman
I agree with my hon. Friend. I certainly wish Ministers to listen to what I have to say, and I have numerous questions to pose to them, but the proceedings have started, so I must continue. I hope that the Minister will arrive before I have proceeded much further.
The ATOL scheme was introduced in the 1970s, a decade in which there was a dramatic increase in the number of people travelling abroad on package holidays. ATOL is a Government-backed insurance scheme that protects holidaymakers flying abroad from the effects if travel firms go bankrupt. Holidaymakers can be reimbursed for the cost of holidays and repatriated where necessary. Over the past three years, 250,000 people have received refunds as part of the scheme and 100,000 have been repatriated.
Firms covered by the ATOL scheme charge each passenger £2.50 to cover the cost of ATOL. However, at the time of our inquiry, the Air Travel Trust Fund from which payments are drawn was in deficit to the tune of £42 million. That deficit is now decreasing. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us the latest figure, as it is important to have. The deficit is falling because the charge per passenger was recently increased from £1 to £2.50, but the scheme remains controversial. Currently, only about half of holiday bookings are covered, an issue at the heart of ATOL reform.
The situation is complicated. Traditional package holidays sold by travel agents and tour operators are covered by ATOL. Holidays sold by agents or firms defined as acting as agents for the consumer, particularly online, are not. Firms selling holidays not covered by the scheme have a competitive advantage, because they do not have to charge for ATOL cover. However, it is not clear whether consumers are aware of that difference. There is also the problem of who pays for repatriating travellers stranded abroad by the bankruptcy of an airline or agent not covered by the scheme.
The Government are in the process of changing ATOL. Two reforms have already been made. First, “flight-plus” holidays—in which a flight plus another part of the holiday, such as a hotel booking or car hire, is bought within a 48-hour window—sold by existing ATOL operators are now covered. Secondly, customers buying holiday packages covered by ATOL must now be issued with a certificate telling them that that is the case. Those two changes are an advance.
The extension of ATOL to certain flight-plus holidays is estimated to bring some 6 million additional holidays into the scheme, ensuring that 60% of holidaymakers are covered. The extra revenue brought into the scheme by those extra travellers should help reduce the charge per passenger, but operators have challenged the Government’s figures, claiming that the travel industry will find ways around the new regulations.
Jim Fitzpatrick
My hon. Friend is outlining clearly the background to the ATOL scheme and illustrating the details. She mentioned the changes. On Tuesday, we had the opportunity to debate in the Chamber the Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill, and the Minister moved amendments to improve the ATOL scheme. Will she be referring in her remarks to how those amendments improve the scheme? They relate to what she is discussing, and they go part of the way towards what she wants addressed, which is the 21st-century way of booking holidays.
Mrs Ellman
Yes, I will be referring to that point. I would like some information from the Minister on what has happened in practice since the scheme was changed in April.
Our other concern about the extension of ATOL involved the lack of consumer input into the changes. The Government’s consultation on the change attracted just four responses from consumer groups, which I find pretty amazing, because I have had responses from constituents concerned about the scheme as it was operating. The responses from those four consumer groups hardly seemed to feature in the Government’s analysis. Only one consumer group, Holiday Travel Watch, submitted evidence to our inquiry, opposing the extension of ATOL to flight-plus holidays.
The Committee was concerned, as was I, about the minimal consumer response. We need to know what consumers think about the proposed changes and how they are working, and what further changes consumers want.
Jim Fitzpatrick
Having read the recommendations from my hon. Friend’s Committee and the Government response, one of the questions that I will be asking the Minister later—reinforcing what she is asking at the moment—is about the Government’s saying that the responsibility for ensuring protection against the collapse of a holiday lies with the consumer. Part of the great difficulty is that consumers do not pay enough attention to whether they are insured and, if they get stranded, the taxpayer picks up the bill.
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend’s comments reflect views that the Committee has heard over a long period—we have been looking at the issue for a number of years. Particularly when people are stranded on holiday and have problems, we realise that those consumers simply did not know what they were covered for or indeed whether they were covered. That has to be a key issue for the Government. They have partially addressed it, but I will say later how I think that that is proceeding.
The Government were well placed to overcome the problem of that relative lack of formal reaction from consumers and consumer groups by commissioning their own research into whether consumers understood the concept of ATOL cover and whether they wanted it to apply to packages that they assemble themselves online. We must remember the changing nature of the way in which people organise their holidays, because individual consumers organising their own holidays and assembling packages online is a growing trend, so it is important for us to know what consumer views are and about the type of insurance that they think most appropriate. Up until now, however, the Government have not done that. The extension of the scheme has not been based on explicit consumer research, and I want the Minister to tell us why the Government did not do more to find out specifically what consumers want.
The Committee welcomed the introduction of the ATOL certificate, which will increase clarity for consumers about their cover. We have found a consistent issue over the years to be that passengers and holidaymakers simply do not know what they are covered for. There is a risk, however, that consumers who buy holidays that are not ATOL protected will not realise that. Owing to the Government’s positive action, the people who are now ATOL protected will know that they are covered, but the ones who are not covered will not know, because they will not have a certificate. Do the people without a certificate realise that that means they are not covered by ATOL? We simply do not know.
More could be done to inform consumers not covered by scheme of their position and options. The Government agreed to consider our suggestion, perhaps by introducing a voluntary scheme for airlines to inform customers of their protection—or lack of it—when buying a flight. Can the Minister tell me what progress has been made in taking that suggestion forward?
Mark Lazarowicz
That is important because, as my hon. Friend said, normal people make their holiday arrangements, effectively, by putting together their own packages, which raises the issue of what cover there should be in the event of an airline-only arrangement falling through if the airline goes out of business. There are clear difficulties with doing something at UK level only, as well as issues of practicality, but the report highlights the importance of voluntary agreements and discussion in the industry up to a European level. Does she think as I do, it important for the Government to be able to show that they are actively pursuing the possibility at European level? That is another point to which the Minister needs to respond when we reach the appropriate point in the proceedings.
Mrs Ellman
I agree with my hon. Friend that the matter needs to be pursued in the European arena, because the nature of air travel is such that it is likely to involve travel outside this country. We need to know from the Minister exactly what is happening and what progress, if any, has been made.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) mentioned, the Civil Aviation Bill includes clauses that will make more fundamental change possible. Such changes will be implemented, we are told, at a future date. Will the Minister say what the timetable for that implementation is? As my hon. Friend said, there was a debate on the subject yesterday, and amendments to the Bill were discussed, but we need to know the timetable so that we can monitor progress. During the Select Committee inquiry, the then Minister was asked how the Civil Aviation Bill would affect holiday insurance cover, and it was clear that there would be major changes. We need to know the detail of such changes, as well as the timetable for implementation of the Bill.
In future, packages sold by airlines and by those designated as agents for the consumer, will be included in ATOL. The Committee supports that change, because it is an anomaly that a holiday package sold by a travel agent has ATOL protection while the same package sold online by a firm operating as an agent for the consumer—for which there is a specific definition—is not covered. That is extremely confusing for the consumer, and one reason for the reform is to provide greater clarity for the consumer, as well as more comprehensive cover, and to create a more even playing field in the industry. When we conducted our inquiry, we spoke to a range of people, including those from the travel industry and its different sectors. One point made forcefully to us was that different parts of the industry would be affected in different ways, and a strong view from some was that there should be an even playing field for the travel industry itself. The Government are addressing that situation, but we need to know how the proposals will change it. We need to know what progress has been made on providing appropriate cover, clarity and even-handedness for the consumer, and on creating a more equal playing field in the travel sector.
There have been calls for the Government to go further than they propose and to bring all international flights within ATOL, providing passengers with protection from airline insolvency. In our inquiry, we found different views in different parts of the travel sector. ABTA, the Association of British Travel Agents, has argued strongly for that, pointing out that tour operators often fail because airlines have run into financial difficulties. On the whole, the airlines oppose such calls, arguing that there is a significant difference between a holiday package and a flight. They suspect that the change would mean their being asked to bail out the air travel trust fund, which, they argue, has been emptied because of what they allege to be badly managed tour operators going bust. Those were the points made to us in our inquiry, although we did not get a unanimous view from those who came to speak to us.
On balance, it would be helpful to see international flights covered by ATOL. The additional cost per ticket would be small, consumers could be confident of repatriation in the event of an airline becoming insolvent, and the scope for operators to find loopholes in the ATOL rules would be reduced; quite a number of the witnesses to our inquiry felt that if a scheme for partial cover was proposed, part of the industry would find loopholes to get around the new regulations. The European Commission is looking hard at the question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith was right about the importance of looking at the issue across Europe. When a decision is taken in Europe, it is not taken just by another body with no reference to the United Kingdom Government. There is a process, and the Government and specifically the Department for Transport in this instance have a way of influencing what happens, and should advocate what they believe is best for our travel industry. Will the Minister update us on what is being discussed at European Union level, and on the Government’s view on the matter? It is important to know what the Government, through the Department for Transport or any other appropriate part of Government, are doing to pursue what they believe is the right way to proceed on travel insurance, and getting the best deal for British consumers.
Mark Lazarowicz
That is particularly important because in the few instances of airlines going out of business in recent years, most have been pretty small, and passengers have been picked up by other, larger airlines. However, low-cost budget airlines are now operating throughout the European Union, and many are based in other countries where a UK operator might not feel inclined to offer a replacement flight if it had no connection with the UK. Is that not an important reason for addressing the matter at European level, and why the Government must show that they are actively pursuing the issue to try to get an appropriate solution for consumers?
Mrs Ellman
My hon. Friend makes an important point. One issue raised during our inquiry was that the European travel package regulations are being renegotiated, which may take some time. That makes it particularly important that our Government, through the Department for Transport or whatever part of the Government is thought to be correct, advocate during the long-drawn-out discussions on that package, what is correct for UK consumers. It is an ongoing process, and it would be helpful to know what the Department is pursuing in this area at European level, what stage those discussions have reached, and how it will be involved as they proceed and before the extensive European travel package regulations are finalised.
The charge of £2.50 per passenger to pay for ATOL is unfair, because it is not linked to the value of the holiday booking or any assessment of risk. Someone booking a cheap package deal with an established operator pays the same for protection as someone buying a luxury trip to a far-flung country with a niche provider. That is unfair, and the situation would be even worse if flight-only bookings were included, because the ATOL charge could be a high proportion of the cost of a cheap flight. The Government have agreed to re-evaluate the level and the basis of the charge. Will the Minister say what progress is being made with the review?
On the long-term options for ATOL, we considered whether it should be scrapped altogether and replaced with private insurance. We concluded that that was not possible. Few insurance policies are available to provide the same level of protection, and the Government cannot avoid their responsibility swiftly to repatriate people stranded abroad because a travel firm has failed. The EU package travel directive requires the UK to provide a financial protection scheme for holidaymakers.
Nevertheless, there is scope for further reform, particularly when the scheme’s deficit has been cleared. In the Committee’s view, a reformed scheme must distinguish clearly between financial protection for consumers, which might sometimes be covered by private insurance, and repatriation, which is unavoidably an issue for the Government. The scheme should be industry funded, not reliant on Government guarantees as at present, and perhaps it should be managed by the industry. Consumers should have a greater say in deciding what is covered, and there should be more research on what consumers want. There must be more clarity and more public information, so that consumers are clear about when they are covered and when they are not. The Committee would like the cost per booking to come down, and be proportionate to the price of the package. If that were done, much of the controversy about the scheme might fade away.
In recent years, the internet has enabled some people to bypass travel agents and tour operators, and to put together their own package holidays. The ATOL scheme has not kept pace with that development. It has run into financial difficulties, and there is now confusion about who is covered by the scheme and who is not. The Committee welcomes the Government’s steps for reform, but there is much more to be done. I look forward to hearing about further proposals for change.
The nature of the leisure industry and holiday bookings has changed. Travel protection needs to reflect those changes and consumers’ needs. The Department has started to address that, but a great deal more needs to be done, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps are being taken, and what the Government’s plans are.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am sorry, Mr Williams, as that comes as a bit of a surprise in that I was anticipating other colleagues to be called to speak before me. However, I am grateful for the opportunity.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
In the interests of clarity, I should say that my ambition is to speak in the second debate. I hope that this brief interruption gives the hon. Gentleman time to get his paperwork in order.
Jim Fitzpatrick
Given the number of colleagues who have been able to attend, and given other business in the House, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to make a substantial contribution to the second debate, given that we have three hours in which to discuss both reports.
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Williams. It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our business. I also welcome the 17th report from the Select Committee on Transport, “Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (ATOL) Reform”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chairman of the Committee, eloquently outlined in introducing the report, the air travel trust fund has its origins in the 1970s, but in March 2012 it registered a deficit of some £18.5 million. She mentioned the fact that in 1992, 98% of holidays were covered by ATOL, but in recent times the figure for the market in package holidays, which were the original target for the protection scheme, has fallen way below 40%.
As my hon. Friend also outlined, protection is not just good; it is essential. When companies fail, citizens may be abandoned, and certainly distressed. Responsibility is then on the Government to rescue them, and ultimately the taxpayer must foot the bill. That cannot be right. If people are able to enjoy holidays abroad, there must be some responsibility on them, as well as the organisations that get them to their destination, to ensure that they are covered for returning home. The previous Government were addressing the need for reform, and this Government have carried that on, as well as the need to close the deficit, balance the fund and provide future protection in the light of how bookings are made in the 21st century.
A helpful briefing from the Association of British Travel Agents says in respect of the modern way that people book holidays that
“robust evidence exists to prove that airlines can and do fail financially. Since 2000, 46% of monies paid out from the ATTF on failed ATOL holders can be attributed to the knock-on effects of airline insolvencies.”
It continues:
“In the last three years alone, 51% of all claims on the ATTF can be attributed to monies paid out following failures of ATOL holders as a direct result of airline insolvencies”.
That reinforces my hon. Friend’s point about the modern way of booking holidays.
I shall refer to some of the recommendations in the Committee’s reports, and to the Government response, to reinforce what my hon. Friend said. Recommendation 2 says that additional consumer protection is needed, and in respect of consumers the Government responded
“so they can make alternative arrangements for financial protection, if desired.”
The essential question here relates to many of the points made by my hon. Friend and to the Committee’s recommendations. As she said, only four consumers responded to the report. We had an exchange about consumer awareness of whether they are protected. People want to book the best holiday at the cheapest price, and they may not recognise whether those holidays are ATOL protected. Therefore, the Government’s comment in response to recommendation 2—that consumers
“can make alternative arrangements for financial protection, if desired”—
is somewhat inadequate. We do not want people to want to be rescued; we want them to help to pay for the cost of being rescued, because if they do not, the rescue is down to the Government and the taxpayer foots the bill.
That theme is continued in recommendation 7. The Government responded:
“When a consumer does not receive a Certificate, they will know that they will not be covered by the ATOL scheme”.
However, I am not sure that the consumer will know about that if they do not receive a certificate. It is clear that a lot of people, over recent years and decades, have been stranded, thinking that they were covered, without realising that they were not, because they did not understand the scheme.
Subsequently, the Government say that they
“will consider with the CAA… suggesting information that should be provided to consumers about financial protection every time that a flight is purchased.”
Our point of view, and the theme of the Committee’s report, is that everybody should be protected, and a way must be found to ensure that that protection is included in the price of the holiday.
Finally, the Government’s response to recommendations 5 and 9 states:
“The requirement that those organising and selling package holidays should have in place provision for refunds or repatriation in the event of organiser insolvency comes from the PTD.”
In our view, the position is straightforward: the Government need to ensure that consumers are protected, even against themselves.
Competition within the travel industry is fierce, with many great holidays on offer from airlines, travel companies, package holiday companies, and all manner of individual organisations and collectives, and the Committee is asking a number of questions that the Government need to address. My hon. Friend detailed those issues in her opening remarks, covering the scheme’s history and asking the Minister a number of questions that I know he will respond to in due course, because they are outstanding from the Committee’s report. I have reinforced some of those questions, because they are fundamental to the well-being of the scheme.
The scheme has been reformed in recent years, and that continues with the amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill moved by the Minister in the House on Tuesday. Clearly, the Government are indicating that they will continue with that reform and that, in due course, they will hold a consultation on future reforms. Comments made to me and to the Opposition suggest that there is keen interest in continuing the reform process and in making progress. If I remember correctly, the Minister said in the House on Tuesday that a further consultation is due in the spring, but the question from the industry, consumer groups and the Committee is, when is it likely to happen and can it be expedited?
This is unfinished business, going back many years. We began with it in government, and it is great to see the coalition continuing with it. We want the situation reformed, the deficit bridged, and the fund to be in surplus, not in excess, with enough to cover any contingencies. The whole travel industry—airlines and travel operators—wants exactly the same thing. There is agreement that progress has been made over recent years, but work remains to be done and I look forward to the Minister outlining how he intends to finish the job.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and I am pleased that the Transport Committee has secured this debate on a very important subject.
Before I get to the detail of the points that have been raised and of the Government’s approach, both to the Committee’s report and in terms of our response to the recommendations, I must make an abject apology—not only to you, Mr Williams, but to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman); to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick); and to others who have come to the debate—for the fact that I turned up late.
I was under the impression—totally wrongly, as it happens—that the debate would start at half-past 2, and I had planned on that basis. What had not been taken into account was the fact that we have, of course, modernised our hours since the middle of October and that debate starts at 1.30.
I am very, very sorry about that. I am furious with myself that I have been discourteous to the Transport Committee and to the Chamber. I can guarantee you, Mr Williams, that this will never happen again, as it affects me, and I hope that, in that spirit, you and hon. Members will accept my apology. There is no excuse whatever.
Mrs Ellman
I completely accept the Minister’s apology. At times, we all get caught out by changes in the timetable. Until relatively recently, I thought the debate was at 2.30, then I discovered that it was to start at 1.30. It is perfectly understandable.
Mr Burns
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who is being remarkably generous in the circumstances. Although I appreciate her kindness, there is no excuse for what has happened. I should have been here at 1.30, but I do thank her.
It is clear that the hon. Lady’s Committee has taken a keen interest in ATOL reform and I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss it further following the Committee’s report, which was published in April. Since the Committee reported on ATOL reform, significant changes to the scheme have come into effect that have greatly improved its functioning. Reform of the ATOL scheme is necessary to increase consumer clarity, ensure its efficient functioning and, in the longer term, put it on a self-sustaining financial basis.
On 30 April, the same day as the Committee’s report was published, the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) Regulations 2012 came into force, bringing flight-plus holidays into the scope of the ATOL scheme. A flight-plus holiday is one where the consumer requests to book a flight and accommodation or car hire within a two-day period. That change gives consumers greater clarity and covers many more people. It means that, essentially, if one buys something from a travel agent or tour operator that looks like a package holiday, including a flight, one should be protected by ATOL.
The Civil Aviation Authority has reported that in 2012-13, 2.5 million more holidaymakers can be covered, thanks to that single change. The flight-plus reform has enjoyed broad support from industry, consumer groups and other stakeholders. As the Committee and our analysis have suggested, it is critical that consumers are aware of their coverage. Flight-plus has gone a long way towards clarifying the ATOL scheme and reducing the chances of consumers mistakenly thinking that they are covered, but further to address that, on 1 October, we introduced the ATOL certificate, which is a standardised document given to every person booking an ATOL-covered holiday. It sets out the coverage and says what to do if things go wrong.
The introduction of the ATOL certificate has been widely welcomed by the travel industry and consumer groups alike. On its launch, it received favourable coverage in the travel industry and national press. The travel trade has worked hard to get ready for all the ATOL reforms, and I applaud its efforts to do so. The CAA has also done a very good job in supporting the travel trade in its preparations. Receiving the ATOL certificate shows that holidaymakers and travellers are covered; equally, not receiving an ATOL certificate with a booking indicates that people are not covered. It removes any uncertainty and gives holidaymakers and travellers peace of mind.
To make the changes effective, the holiday-buying public must be aware of them. To that end, the CAA is preparing for a publicity campaign in the next few months to increase awareness of the changes. Fortunately, that will coincide with a significant period when people are preparing for and buying their summer holidays, immediately after Christmas. That is a relevant and appropriate time to start getting the message across.
We are pleased with what we have achieved with the ATOL scheme thus far. It goes a long way towards addressing a number of the points in the report. We intend to address some of the remaining issues in the ATOL scheme using new powers in the Civil Aviation Bill, which completed its progress through Parliament earlier this week and will receive Royal Assent in due course.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I have missed this point in his comments, and if he has not covered it, perhaps he will do so.
We referred to the fact that the percentage of holidays covered by ATOL is falling because of the different ways in which people book their holidays. The figure was 98% in 1992, but it is down to below 40%. Will the Minister tell us the percentage of holidays covered by the current scheme and the estimate of the number that will be covered following the reforms that he has introduced and the amendments made to the Bill? How much of a gap will there be?
Will the Minister be looking to address that gap, which we need to close, when he undertakes consultation in the spring, although we will never get to 100%, because some people will always book their own holiday and do their own thing? Will he give us those answers at some point?
Mr Burns
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will certainly come back to him because I also want to deal with a number of points raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside.
Before the hon. Gentleman’s valid intervention, I was about to say that we are pleased with the achievements that the ATOL scheme has so far realised. We believe that they go a long way to addressing a number of the points in the report. We intend to address some of the remaining issues in the ATOL scheme using the new powers in the Bill. For example, holidays sold by airlines are not required to be ATOL protected. That creates a regulatory inequality and potential confusion for holidaymakers. It is important to have a consistent regulatory framework for businesses selling holidays, including a flight, as far as is consistent with EU law.
Further, some consumers are not protected when buying a holiday because that holiday was procured on an “agent for the consumer” basis. That means that, rather than selling a holiday to the consumer, the travel agent technically buys one on the consumer’s behalf, as we discussed on Tuesday in the main Chamber, which means that it is outside the scope of the current ATOL scheme. The powers in the Bill will allow that method of avoiding the scheme to be removed.
Some companies might claim that they are merely facilitating a purchase of a flight, but neither buy on the consumer’s behalf nor make available or sell flight accommodation to them. Thus, they might argue that they are outside the scope of the ATOL scheme. That business practice is a potential avoidance approach. The Bill will give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State powers to require such businesses to hold an ATOL licence.
The Bill is awaiting Royal Assent. Our intention is to create a level competitive playing field and to avoid holidaymakers mistakenly thinking that they have protection when they do not. Holidays including a flight that look like package holidays should be protected like package holidays under the ATOL scheme. These further reforms will go a long way towards ensuring that.
Of course, before taking further steps, we will consult widely. Subject to parliamentary processes, we expect to produce an impact assessment and launch a consultation on draft regulations in 2013. Our decisions will be based on the outcome of that consultation.
Mrs Ellman
I am reassured by the information that the right hon. Gentleman is now giving us, but can he say when he anticipates that a new scheme or the new regulations will be operational?
Mr Burns
I would very much like to do so, but that would give too many hostages to fortune at this stage, because, as I said, we are going to base our decisions on the outcome of consultations. The consultations will be on draft regulations. Obviously, that is a due process, with time scales. Once we have had a consultation, we will have to consider fully the responses to it and any lessons that we may learn from it—any points that arise. Therefore, I hesitate to give a precise timetable that I could be held to, because often, for the best reasons and intentions, one does not keep to a precise timetable, which then leads to further problems. However, I can assure the hon. Lady that we are determined to do this because we want to get protection for those who deserve and should have protection. We want to get it right, effective and appropriate, and we will do it without cutting corners as soon as it is practically possible to do so.
Let me return to the intervention from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse about the figures. This information may be helpful to him. As I understand it, ATOL coverage is now at about 50% for leisure trips abroad by air. We expect flight-plus reforms to increase that to 55%. No estimate has been made at this stage of further increases from reforms that will be made by the Civil Aviation Bill. However, we expect that to be included in the consultations next year, so that when we move forward with our precise proposals to tackle these problems, we may be in a better position to upgrade the second of the figures that I gave the hon. Gentleman and anticipate the increase in the coverage percentage as a result of the proposals that we will bring forward. I hope that that was of some help to the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I appreciate the statistics that the Minister has just cited. I confess to being a little surprised that, with the advent of flight-plus, the protection goes only to 55% of people travelling abroad on holiday. I am not pointing the finger at anyone and saying that they are responsible for that, but it shows the size of the problem facing the Government, because the other 45% of travellers are the ones the Government will have to pick up the tab for if they need emergency flights to get them home. Those are the people the taxpayer wants to ensure are paying some insurance cover for themselves.
Mr Burns
I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I think, though, that, up to a point the relatively small increase in the coverage reflects the fact that the number of people who buy a package holiday in the conventional sense is far greater than the number of people who will buy a flight-plus plan. I think that that is one of the main reasons for the relatively small increase in the percentage.
On ATOL and our proposals, our aim—from the actions that we have already taken and those that will flow from the Civil Aviation Bill—is to provide clarity about coverage rather than to protect everyone. The ATOL certificate will help to show consumers when they are or are not covered. They can then decide what level of protection they purchase through insurance or by paying by credit card, which is an element of the protection in the scheme. The scheme will give greater clarity to individuals before they decide what to purchase.
Jim Fitzpatrick
One point referred to earlier is the consumer’s awareness of whether what they purchase is ATOL-protected. That is a huge issue, because the more that people realise they are uninsured or unprotected, the more likely they are to think about that and to decide that it is worth the £2.50, as it currently is, to protect their family and themselves against anything that might happen, and with which they may not be familiar.
The Minister may not be able to respond on this now, but in due course, when the CAA launches the extended scheme, will it seek the biggest possible buy-in, particularly from the companies that offer protection, to have as much publicity as possible? That would raise the awareness of consumers, and allow companies engaged in the scheme to point the finger at those that are not, and say to people, “If you go with them, you are not covered; if you come with us, you are.”
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. For any scheme, a crucial element, apart from its effectiveness, is people’s understanding and knowledge of what they may—or, more importantly, may not—have protection against.
I have every confidence that companies, whether tour operators or airlines, will do all they can to make potential customers aware that they are covered by the scheme, because that is a positive selling point for customers and gives them peace of mind. However, as I said earlier, the CAA will also publicise the scheme proactively to ensure that people are generally aware of their protections if they make purchases from those covered by the scheme or from those who, in due course, will be brought within its ambit through our use of the powers contained in the Civil Aviation Bill.
It will become part of people’s mindset that the protection exists, and they will want to know whether they are protected because of the possible implications if they are not. This is slightly off the subject, so I will keep the comments brief, but that is like people going abroad under their own initiative, who may not get the health card for the reciprocal health arrangements in Europe if they travel there, or private health insurance if they travel further afield—to the United States or wherever—although, if they are taken ill or have an accident and need medical treatment, they will face catastrophic bills that could, for instance, completely change their family’s financial position.
The more publicity there is and the more that people are aware of what the situation is and what protections they have, the more the consumer will be interested and concerned to find out exactly what they are buying.
Mrs Ellman
Does the Minister know when the CAA intends to embark on the advertising and the promotion of information? Will the CAA do that with the industry itself, and will the advertising relate to the consumer needs that we have already identified? One feature that has been constant, certainly over the many years that the Committee and people elsewhere have looked at the issue, is the confusion in the customer’s mind about whether they are insured, and about what they are covered for and when.
Mr Burns
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, because it raises an important issue. As I said earlier, we expect the campaign to be launched by the CAA immediately after Christmas. That is when many people consider purchasing holidays for the summer, so it will be relevant at that time. It will seek to make people aware not only of the ATOL scheme—for those who are not aware of it, and I fear that many are not or do not fully understand what it is—but of the changes and improvements made during this year. It will also provide clarity, so that the message gets across to those who are purchasing a holiday, flights or whatever, that as well as looking for value for money and so on, they should check whether their purchase is ATOL-protected and what that protection means.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I was going to ask the Minister another question but, if I may, I will ask him a supplementary to the one from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside.
The Minister has said that the CAA is looking to start advertising in the new year. We all know that summer holidays start being advertised on Boxing day. That is the sort of time when people are indoors and when those who work have a few days off, and they will be tempted by the adverts on the TV. That is the time for the industry to advertise. My hon. Friend asked whether the CAA will be engaged with the industry. An imprimatur on adverts—that they are CAA-approved—might be the way to co-ordinate the publicity campaign between the industry, which will have greater buy-in from the customer, and the CAA, which might have their future bills reduced.
I wanted to ask about the Minister’s earlier comment on people not taking out private health insurance, for example, when they go to the United States. Most people know that if anything happens to them there, they face a massive health bill, and I think that most people therefore take out private insurance. Are there any figures for the comparison between the number of those who travel to such difficult places and the 50% to 55%, who the Minister says are ATOL-protected against the collapse of their airline?
Mr Burns
On the last point, to the best of my knowledge, there are no figures, and I suspect that, by their nature, it would be difficult to find any accurate figures. However, there is one benefit. The hon. Gentleman talks about the north Atlantic route, on which the two main carriers are British Airways and Virgin. At the moment, they have both voluntarily signed up, so their passengers have the protections. They have done that simply because they want to give such protection to their customers, and I pay tribute to them for doing so voluntarily.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the start of the advertising campaign is intended to coincide with the Boxing day bank holiday. He and I are familiar with the huge number of adverts that traditionally emanate immediately after breakfast on that day.
On whether the CAA will consult the industry, I have no doubt that it will. The CAA wants a focused system of advertising that gets across the message. It is open, as the Government are, to views, opinions and recommendations that will help it come up with the most informative and best advertising, and with maximum coverage for their message.
I am not sure that I altogether have the same faith as the hon. Gentleman in human nature. Although, to the best of my knowledge, no figures can prove or disprove this, I suspect that significantly more people do not bother to get health insurance to go across the Atlantic than either of us might think, particularly those who go for only a short period and try to wing it, believing that nothing will happen to them. However, that is a slightly different point.
Let me now move on to the European angle that the report covered. The Committee called for a clearer distinction between the consumer protection and the repatriation functions of ATOL. Much depends, however, on what happens at the European level with the planned reforms of the package travel directive. The ATOL scheme implements in part the PTD requirement for insolvency protection for consumers. We expect the Commission to announce its reform proposals in spring 2013, and the Government will consult on what position the UK should take. The form of the Commission’s proposals will help determine how we implement further changes to the ATOL scheme, so we will not consult on the new ATOL regulations until the Commission has announced its proposals, because, as both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will accept, it would be rather pointless to put the cart before the horse.
The scheme is financed by the air travel trust fund. For historic reasons, the ATTF has a deficit and requires a commercial borrowing facility, backed by my Department, of up to £20 million. The introduction of the ATOL protection contribution and the increased number of protected passengers have, thanks to our recent reforms, brought more money into the fund, and the deficit now is on track to being eliminated in the next year or so. That presents an opportunity to reform the finances of the ATOL scheme.
The Government will consider broader changes to the scheme and invite comments on its funding and management to ensure its continued effectiveness. Our aim is to ensure that the scheme is equitable for consumers, the travel industry and the taxpayer.
The hon. Lady raised a number of matters during her contribution. On some, for the reasons that she is aware of and that I am acutely aware of, I will have to write to her to give her the answers. She asked whether airlines and tour operators based in other countries will be covered by the scheme. All sales of package holidays in the EU are covered by the protections in the PTD, but under EU law we cannot require airlines or tour operators established in a European economic area state, other than in the UK, to have an ATOL licence to protect sales of flight plus holidays. That is why we want to examine the Commission’s proposed reforms to the PTD before consulting on any new ATOL regulations, as that might extend protection to all or some flight- plus type holidays. We want to understand the impact on UK airlines and other businesses as part of that consultation, and, as I say, we will engage in that once the Commission has published its proposals.
The hon. Lady also asked about the discussions on travel insurance between the EU and the Government. All I can say is that they are ongoing. The most appropriate time to discuss them is within the whole consultation process on the PTD in due course next year.
In conclusion, as might be clear by now, ATOL reform is not a simple process, but at each step of the way, the Government have acted to create an effective and financially self-sustaining scheme. To ensure effective protection for travellers and holidaymakers, the Government have increased the extent of coverage, improved consumer clarity and moved to bring more holidays into the scope of the ATOL scheme. We shall keep the principle of effective protection in mind as we consider further changes to the ATOL scheme in the near future.
Once again, I thank the Transport Committee for its constructive comments and I am glad to have had the opportunity to debate this important issue. Again, I offer my sincere and deepest apologies to the members of the Committee for the position that I put them in at the beginning of the debate.
Flight Time Limitations
(12 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
We now come to our second debate of the afternoon on the flight time limitations applying to airline pilots and cabin crew. The subject is complex, but it has a direct and major effect on anyone who flies on a commercial aircraft. Fundamentally, it is about safety—regulating the hours and working practices of air crew so that they are not too tired to do their jobs and can keep passengers and crews safe. It is a matter of crucial importance.
Human error is associated with around 80% of aviation accidents. A major research study has shown that pilot fatigue contributes to between 15% and 20% of fatal air accidents. Fatigue makes it harder for people to concentrate, decreases reaction times, and increases the risk of people lapsing momentarily into unconsciousness or sleep. All such problems can prove fatal if the fatigued person is piloting an aircraft.
The most shocking statistic that we came across during our inquiry was from the British Airline Pilots Association. A survey of its members found that 43% of pilots reported involuntarily falling asleep while on the flight deck. Of those, 31% awoke to find their co-pilot asleep. That demonstrates why the subject of flight time limitations is so deserving of our attention.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who is Chair of the Transport Committee, has raised that statistic; it certainly saves me raising it later on. It truly is shocking. Has she considered what the impact will be of the proposal to reduce the number of pilots on some long-haul flights from three to two given that they might both be asleep, or does she have further information about whether there might only have been two pilots on such aircraft at the time?
Mrs Ellman
I will take up that point in a moment.
Flight time limitations are a complex package of measures, dealing with how working hours are distributed over the year, start and finish times, rest periods, and the impact of time zones. UK airlines are currently regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority. The major change that sparked our inquiry is that the rules are now being set at an EU level by the European Aviation Safety Agency, which is based in Cologne. As part of our inquiry we visited EASA, to discuss its work with the agency’s director.
The UK’s flight time limits are set by the CAA, which is permissible under EU regulations. In 2009, EASA started a process of establishing a Europe-wide scheme, and the UK Government are part of those negotiations, so the matter has not come on us suddenly. The advantage in establishing EU-wide flight time limitations is that safety standards across the EU are expected to rise, which will benefit passengers travelling on European carriers. However, there is also a real risk that well-established UK standards will be reduced as part of the process of achieving consensus across the EU. In addition, there are serious questions about EASA’s work, particularly in relation to how it has used scientific advice. More plainly, there are questions about how EASA did not use the latest scientific advice in assessing safe standards.
Many aspects of flight time limitations are relatively uncontentious, but some have generated passionate debate. I will focus this afternoon on the most hotly contested issues, and I will set out my Committee’s conclusions.
We looked at the proposals that were published by EASA in January this year. EASA has since published its formal opinion, which will now be reviewed by the European Commission before coming into law. I will be putting some questions to the Minister about EASA’s latest conclusions. Again, I stress that we are not talking about the EU suddenly announcing a decision without proper consultation. This country, including the Department for Transport, is part of that ongoing and long consultation, so it has an active part to play.
One of the main concerns of the Committee was about the number of hours that crew can fly overnight. The scientific advice provided to EASA has been clear in recommending that the proposed 11-hour duty period was too long and that the limit should be 10 hours. The Government told us that they would not press EASA to change its proposals, arguing instead for more active management of long overnight flight duty periods. In that, the Government were successful. But why is the Minister satisfied that pilots will be allowed to fly overnight for one more hour than scientific opinion considers to be the safe limit? That is an extremely serious matter.
Another concern was about the very long duty periods allowed for under EASA’s proposals. We heard that a pilot could be landing a plane after 19 hours at work and perhaps after 21 or 22 hours of being awake. The CAA described that scenario as “exceptionally rare”, but I do not think that anyone here today would be happy to fly if they knew that their pilot had been working around the clock, however unusual that situation is alleged to be.
EASA’s new proposals seem to improve that situation, with a cap on airport stand-by and associated flight duty of 16 hours. However, BALPA has put a new scenario to us that shows how other aspects of the rules could lead to a pilot working for almost 24 hours, if a long period on stand-by waiting for a delay to an aircraft to be resolved is followed by a normal duty period. I would be grateful for the Minister’s observations on a situation of that nature.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
Perhaps it would be helpful to the hon. Lady if I said that such a situation is not the intention of the proposal. A cap of 16 hours has been placed on combinations of airport stand-by and flight duty periods, to clarify the issue. I hope that she finds that helpful.
Mrs Ellman
I thank the Minister for his comments and I would be grateful to receive more detail on that cap, in a written response, so that we can consider it. There are concerns that there could be situations in which EASA’s 16-hour limit is breached. As I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members recognise, even after the short time I have been discussing the issue, the nature of the rules is complex. There are individual regulations that give rise to concern, and because they can be combined and have an impact on each other, the worry is that that might result in flying becoming less safe.
The Committee also raised concerns about the scheduling of frequent consecutive early starts, which can be particularly fatiguing. EASA requires early duties to be actively managed; we heard that response in relation to several of our recommendations. In principle, careful management of how rosters and duty patterns affect crew is, of course, sensible. However, it is not yet clear what careful management will actually involve and how it will be regulated. Will the Minister explain how UK airlines will discharge their responsibilities to manage fatigue actively, particularly where the potential for fatigue is high, such as in early starts? Will he also explain how the CAA will regulate early starts? Will he give a commitment that the CAA will step in and act against any UK airline that is not taking fatigue management seriously?
When we hear that fatigue is to be “managed”, that is superficially reassuring, but what might happen on a day when an aircraft is flying late and timetables must be met? Would short cuts be taken? Would a member of staff who raised the issue of management of fatigue be seen as disruptive rather than concerned about safety? Those are practical issues that must be addressed, because it is all too easy to hide under the cloak of generalities; I am sure that those generalities are well intentioned, but the test is whether they are applied in relation to a particular flight at a given time when there may be stressful conditions.
It is crucial that there is transparency about incidents involving fatigue and situations that might lead to fatigue, such as increases in duty periods at the commander’s discretion. Greater public awareness will help to drive complacency and poor practice out of the airline sector. It is also essential that the under-reporting of fatigue by aircrew is addressed. In 2011, just 20 reports of incidents caused by fatigue that endangered or could have endangered life were reported to the CAA. That is surely an example of gross under-reporting, given the other evidence about how common pilot fatigue is. The issue is not only what the rules say, particularly if those rules are of a general nature, but what happens on a specific occasion and whether a member of staff—a pilot, or indeed another member of the crew—might feel that if they make representations they would be seen as not supportive of their airline when in fact they were raising concerns about safety.
The CAA is now considering how to address under-reporting. It would be very helpful if the Minister told us exactly how the CAA is doing so, what actions will be taken and how any proposals that the CAA has would be monitored? The Government told us that they were committed to transparency and have asked the CAA to review what data can be put in the public domain without discouraging the reporting of incidents or identifying individuals. Again, I would be grateful if we received further information about what exactly is being planned.
One of our most serious concerns was about EASA’s treatment of scientific evidence in developing its flight time proposals. EASA started from the standpoint that flight time limitations are based on operational experience and negotiations with trade unions. Scientific advice about how fatigue affects people at work was overlooked. After being criticised for this omission, EASA commissioned three scientists to give independent advice, but then ignored some of that advice. The decision to press ahead with an 11-hour overnight duty period is the best example of that. During the course of our inquiry, we spoke to some of those scientists and we found that, following their report, EASA had had very little contact with them, which was a matter of concern to us.
We called on the Government to ensure that scientists have a more central role in further work by EASA on flight time limitations. In response, we were told that the CAA wants EASA to maintain an advisory group on flight time rules, calling on scientific and other expert advice. Is the Minister satisfied that EASA has developed its current process with little input from scientific advisers and has directly ignored some of the clear advice that it has received? Moreover, is he confident that from now on EASA will change its ways and pay more attention to experts in fatigue? This matter is of great concern and relates to the safety of pilots, the public and passengers. We do not want to have a calamity and then look back and ask, “Why was up-to-date scientific research not incorporated into decision making?” That is why I am posing these questions now.
Many other hon. Members will have been contacted by BALPA on other aspects of the rules that concern it. I want the Minister to address two further points that have been drawn to our attention.
First, we have been told that the Government could adopt the new flight time limitations and then supplement them with higher national standards using existing national legislation. Does the Minister think that is feasible? Is he considering it? One major change, which has been in discussion since 2009, is that Ministers and the Department have told us that it would no longer be possible for the UK to maintain higher standards than other parts of Europe. However, we have now been told that that is not the case. I would be grateful for some clarification from the Minister on that important point.
Secondly, will the Minister and the CAA consider setting up the UK’s own independent fatigue science advisory panel to help the CAA implement the new regulations safely and press EASA for any necessary changes? I cannot over-stress the importance that the Committee attaches to the impact of scientific evidence on fatigue, and how that is interpreted, on the complex combination of flight time limits.
Mr Burns
If it is helpful to the hon. Lady, may I deal with the point about adding on to the proposals? There seems to be some confusion. In the light of some people maintaining that we can add on if we wish to, we have checked yet again with the Commission and have been categorically assured that we cannot.
Mrs Ellman
I am sorry to hear the Minister’s response, but it at least clarifies how the Department sees the position.
I return to a theme of the previous debate—the interplay of decision making between the European Union and its agencies, and the UK. I want the Minister to acknowledge that the UK is not a passive recipient of what the EU decides; that we are part of the decision-making process, and we should advocate what we think is best. The Minister told us during our inquiry that the Department will represent the UK on the comitology committee, which will consider the draft Commission regulation. I want to know what policies the Department has been pursuing and what policies it will pursue as the process of decision making continues.
I have been told that following an EASA committee meeting last week, a number of member states expressed concerns, and that an extraordinary EASA meeting will be held to consider them. I am told that the UK was not one of the member states expressing those concerns. Is my information correct? Was the UK involved with other nations at the meeting last week in expressing concerns? If not, was it a conscious decision? Are there any points which the UK intends to continue to pursue before the matter progresses?
The inquiry was a complicated one for the Committee to undertake, because it was about not just one change but a number of changes and the overall impact of the combination of complex changes. It is an extremely important matter, because it is about public safety. There are clear benefits to setting minimum safety standards across the EU, but there is a clear risk that our own currently higher standards could be compromised. I hope that the UK Government will continue to fight for the highest possible standards. It is also important that there is an open and transparent culture in the airline industry, so that incidents involving fatigue can be reported without staff fearing that they would be reprimanded or viewed in a negative light. It is vital that lessons are learned and that up-to-date scientific advice is heeded.
Airlines, air crew, passengers and the Government all have a strong interest in achieving the highest safety standards, which I hope the new regulations, when they are implemented, will achieve. I want a categorical assurance that our Ministers are fully conscious of all the points that I have raised and that the Committee has considered, and that they will continue to pursue the issue, so that the highest possible safety standards are achieved.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams, and to take part in this important debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), Chair of the Select Committee on Transport, who has comprehensively set out the scope of our inquiry, investigation, conclusions and proposals.
We have many debates on transport—different modes of transport, their economics, speed and social impact—but surely our most important debates are about safety. Any transport accident results in terrible cost, but clearly, the consequences of an airliner incident are particularly severe.
I have been concerned for some time about the proposals from the European Aviation Safety Agency. In addition to our work in the Select Committee, I have had meetings with the British Air Line Pilots Association. I also have a constituent who is a long-haul airline pilot, with whom I have had some discussions about the current situation and the potential consequences of the proposals.
[John Robertson in the Chair]
As has been said, the UK currently has among the strongest regulations in the world, but that does not mean that we are immune from problems. The shocking statistics have already been mentioned: 43% of pilots have reportedly fallen asleep involuntarily on a flight, and, even more disturbingly, 31% have woken up to find the co-pilot also asleep.
Iain Stewart
I appreciate that it was a poll, but that finding must give us cause for concern. It gives us no room for complacency.
I want to back up those findings with an example, given to me by my constituent, of what it feels like to be a long-haul pilot. In a letter he sent me, he said:
“As I am sure you have experienced, occasional jet lag gives you a ‘hung over’, jaded feeling. Perpetual jet lag, as experienced by…long-haul pilots, gives you a much deeper seated, longer lasting ‘hung over’ feeling, with a reduction in your capacity for lucid, quality decision making…Additionally, normal sleep patterns take several weeks to return to normal, which is quite debilitating.”
That is what he feels. When we fly in an aeroplane, we put our lives in the pilots’ hands, and we must have a regime that ensures that we are as safe as we can be.
While there are concerns that Europe is harmonising and potentially reducing the standards in this country, the United States is moving in the other direction. It is looking at tightening up its regulations in response, I understand, to the Colgan air accident in New York in 2009, of which pilot fatigue was a proven cause.
As has been mentioned, the proposals for change to our regulations come from EU legislation that was passed in 2008. The possibility of the United Kingdom maintaining its own separate regulatory regime has been ruled out. I am not, in principle, against harmonisation of standards, and I completely accept and welcome the fact that for many countries in Europe, it will lead to an increase in standards. British passengers who, whether for business or for leisure, do not start or finish their journeys in the UK will rely on other European airlines, so that increase in safety is certainly welcome.
I also accept that the harmonisation of standards has potential economic benefits for airlines. They are operating in tough trading conditions, so anything that helps them to survive economically is welcome, but that cannot be at an unacceptable cost to safety.
I will not repeat all the concerns that the hon. Lady listed, but I want to give a couple of illustrations to show why there is cause for concern. Again, I go back to the example of my constituent, who flies long haul and quite often does the Los Angeles to Heathrow route. It is now exactly 3 o’clock, which is about the time the overnight flight from Los Angeles touches down in London. It is pretty windy today, so the landing would require all my constituent’s skills to be conducted safely. If he was flying today, he would have got out of bed at 2 o’clock this morning to get to the airport for a half-past 4 departure, which means that the flight time is 10 or 11 hours.
Currently, planes have three pilots in the cockpit. That gives each of them a chance to have a sleep so that they can rest and refresh themselves. I am no expert in flying a plane—the Minister will be greatly relieved that I am not flying a plane—but for all the modern equipment that modern airliners have, flying them is still a very cerebral job. Pilots are required to make tricky decisions, and to balance different decisions, to make sure the plane flies safely.
As has been mentioned, however, that three-man crew would be reduced to two under the current proposals. That reduces the potential for the crew to sleep in the bunk, and they would have to sleep in their seats. That is not something I can do—I cannot sleep in a sedentary position—but that is what we are going to require pilots to do. To me, that increases risk, and I am not satisfied that the safety implications have been fully thought through.
I want to highlight a couple of other areas that BALPA is particularly concerned about. One is the fact that pilots will be legally allowed to land after being awake for 22 hours. They could also be forced to work up to seven early starts in a row; that has been proved to cause dangerous cumulative fatigue, which can be as dangerous as drink-driving, a fact that is not fully appreciated.
My other concern is one that the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety highlighted, and the hon. Lady also mentioned it. The proposals are complicated and interlinked; we are not looking at just one change. The advisory council’s concern was that, because the proposals were overly and unnecessarily complicated, airline companies would be able, inadvertently or deliberately, to misinterpret them, or to pick and choose from them, and they might make a decision in one area without realising its consequences elsewhere. Again, I have some concerns about that.
The decision we have to make is whether these changes amount to an acceptable risk. Any journey, on whatever mode of transport, involves an element of risk; whether we get behind the wheel of a car, get on a bus or train, walk somewhere or fly somewhere, we all accept some element of risk, but I am not yet convinced that the proposed changes fall within the bounds of acceptability.
I am particularly concerned that questions remain about whether the proposals are based on scientific evidence. I accept that the Government cannot act unilaterally in this matter, but they are part of the ongoing discussions in Europe, and I simply urge the Minister, in those discussions, to press his colleagues in Europe to base any changes on science, so that we can be as safe as possible in the sky.
I will end on the point the hon. Lady ended on: I do not want to come back to the House at some point in the future, after a disastrous air accident, to debate whether the changes that are happening now were responsible for that accident.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Mr Robertson, it is a pleasure to see you presiding over the debate, sir. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who spoke so eloquently about safety, and I will return to his remarks later.
We welcome the Transport Committee’s first report of the 2012-13 Session. The key question for this whole debate is on the very first page of the Government response. The first sentence under the heading “General” says:
“The Government believes that the current draft of the European Aviation Safety Agency’s…proposals will not lead to a diminution of safety in the UK.”
Well, we have heard from two members of the Committee, who have quoted extensively from personal experience, constituents and BALPA submissions, and made it clear that there were a number of safety concerns about the regulations, and I want to emphasise some of them. Like the previous speakers, I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I seek the reassurance that I am sure he hopes to give us in due course.
Recommendation 1 of the Committee’s report says that the CAA should set
“out its strategy for enforcement and how it will ensure that operators comply”
with their responsibility. In their response, the Government say:
“The CAA will continue to work with EASA on this to ensure that comprehensive guidance material is established”,
adding that once the proposals have been finalised, there will be seminars and the rest of it. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about the timing and about what progress is likely.
Recommendation 2 says the Government should follow up
“the CAA’s concerns about the frequency with which the maximum flight duty period can be exceeded during a scheduled seasonal period.”
The report is referring to the concerns of the CAA, not BALPA or the Transport Committee, and those concerns reflect the evidence the Committee received. The Government’s response says that they
“will raise this issue during EU discussions on this matter.”
That goes back to the point raised by the Chairman of the Committee, who asked about last week’s Transport Council, the UK Government’s response and, generally, where we are going on this issue.
Recommendation 3 calls
“on the CAA to investigate potential under-reporting of pilot fatigue”
so that there can be confidence in the procedures and structures put in place to protect the industry against bad practice. The Government response says:
“The Government accepts the recommendation to investigate the potential under-reporting of pilot fatigue and notes that this is already under consideration by the CAA.”
Again, could the Minister elaborate a little on how that will be undertaken?
As has been mentioned, recommendation 4 covers long-haul flights and oversight. Again, the Committee quotes the CAA as having expressed reservations about the proposed flight duty at night. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) gave a good explanation of the concerns that have been expressed, given that the scientific evidence submitted to the European Aviation Safety Agency makes it absolutely clear that the 11-hour flight duty period at night is too long. The Committee recommends
“that the Government press EASA for a lower limit”.
The secondary question in respect of whether that was going to be done—I will perhaps come back to this a little later—is about the weight given to scientific evidence. My hon. Friend said that the Committee had spoken to the scientists, and as the report goes on to say, the Minister said that their evidence was part of the information used. The question asked is: what is the balance of objectivity? How much weight is given to the scientific evidence? How much weight is given to other submissions and where does the balance lie in terms of the Government arriving at their conclusions?
In their response to recommendation 4, the Government state that additional requirements will be included in the final draft of the impending rules. I am not sure whether that is covered by the Minister’s saying that that is misinformation and that there are not going to be any additional requirements.
Recommendation 6 states that information provided on “commander’s discretion” should be collated and made publicly available. The Government do not believe that publication of a single figure on discretion usage or even an operator’s average discretion usage would provide any safety benefit. I must question the logic of that on the basis that not publishing the data looks as though there is something to hide. Publishing the data, even though it is only a single piece of evidence, gives the safety community, the Transport Committee and others the opportunity to look at it and say, “Is it a single figure? Is it insignificant, or is it a single figure tip of an iceberg? Is there a lot more to this, and do we need to have a look at it?”
The Government’s response states that the CAA will review what information can be published without compromising the integrity of the reporting systems and how best it can be presented to ensure that it is intelligible to the public. I am not sure whether that demeans the public’s intelligence in terms of identifying good safety information. Most of the information will be analysed by experts, professionals and organisations such as the Transport Committee. The CAA will be deciding what can and cannot be published, but when it comes to safety, we want the greatest possible transparency so that everybody can have confidence in what is going on. Will the Minister comment on not publishing the data? After all, it is the commander’s discretion—we are talking about the pilots in charge actually making a judgment.
In recommendation 8, the Committee states:
“The Government should press EASA to amend its proposals to give national aviation authorities the power to monitor”.
That goes back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside that the Government say that there is no discretion—
Jim Fitzpatrick
There will be no additional reporting. But in their response to the Transport Committee report, the Government say that the rules will fully address the Committee’s concern on the issue of oversight.
Finally, in recommendation 9, the Committee states:
“we would have expected scientific advice to have had a more prominent role in the rule-making process.”
That is the point that I was referring to earlier in one of the other recommendations and the question about the balance of consideration given to the scientific evidence, which the Government in their response state is one element of the development of the regulations. But surely scientific evidence would carry greater weight than the comments from an operator? Perhaps the Minister will outline what the balance might be.
Dr Rob Hunter, the head of flight safety for BALPA, has written to us. He has been quoted by hon. Members during the debate. He raises several concerns. I will mention three to reinforce that which has already been referred to. The first is:
“The provision for airlines to extend flying hours rather than it being a Captain's sole decision.”
The second, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South is:
“A reduction in the number of pilots needed on many long-haul flights, so that, for example, a London to Los Angeles flight which would currently require three pilots would only require two”.
So at least one of them might be awake during the whole flight if 43% or 31% of the others are asleep. The third is:
“An increase of over 30% more time on home standby so that pilots could be landing aircraft after having been awake for over 24 hours.”
I heard the Minister’s comment about the 16-hour time limit. Will he reinforce that in his remarks? BALPA is a representative organisation, but it has a very strong safety record and a high reputation within the industry. I know that the Minister would not in any way impugn that. However, the fact that it is raising these issues obviously means that it has to be taken seriously.
The submission, which I am sure the Minister has seen, goes on to say that there is no increase in the hours, so this is not a protection issue in terms of carrying out more work. This is about the way in which the work is actually structured. I know from my time in the fire service, and we have seen it in other businesses, that sometimes managers think they can reconfigure the hours to get greater productivity or greater efficiency, when all they are really doing is tinkering with the mechanism. There is no increase in hours here. The validity of BALPA’s concerns that this is a safety issue are underscored in that respect.
BALPA gave evidence to the Treasury Committee on waking hours and provided specific examples of possible shifts. I will not repeat them, because they have been referred to by the Chair of the Select Committee and her colleague, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South, and I have referred to them earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside introduced the report and effectively outlined the EU consultation and the role of the UK Government. I have asked the Minister about our role within the EU. My hon. Friend raised the key questions of reporting procedures, the scientific evidence and separate national standards, and she sought reassurance on those issues.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes South, as we all know, has established a sound profile on the Transport Committee. He has a reputation as a diligent member of that Committee, as demonstrated by his attendance here today, as well as by his speech. He reinforced the safety concerns of his colleague, the Committee Chair, and lucidly contrasted the different outcomes when harmonising EU standards through regulation. In some countries we will see a lowering of standards and in other countries they will be raised. What is the balance for the UK aviation industry and the travelling public? He gave a graphic illustration of what is at stake here, relating the experience of his constituent, who, hopefully, has now safely landed and is on his or her way through the terminal.
In conclusion, nobody here is saying that safety is anywhere other than at the forefront of Government thinking. However, when BALPA and the Transport Committee, two very reputable organisations in their different arenas, raise so many questions about safety, it is the duty of the official Opposition to reinforce that. We look forward to the Minister’s comments and we look for some reassurance. Hopefully, when we get to the end of this process, we will have a safer industry and not the reverse.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Again, I thank the Transport Committee not only for its report on what is, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said in his concluding remarks, a very important subject, but for the opportunity to debate it today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse on their speeches, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) on his powerful and interesting contribution.
I want to go through the overarching issues as seen from the Government’s point of view and how we believe they should be dealt with, and then I will move on to some of the specific questions raised. I recognise that there has been—understandably—considerable interest in the proposals, not only in the aviation industry but in a wider field. The proposals arouse passion, concern and interest, and it is crucial that we make sure that we get it right.
We have heard examples of pilots falling asleep on duty and concerns that, under the new proposals, they may have to land aircraft after being awake for 22 hours. For that reason, I have a number of important points to make at the outset.
First, the safety of the UK travelling public remains of paramount importance to us, and it always will. That has always defined our approach to air safety regulation in the UK, as it defined the approach of the previous Government, of whom the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse was a member, and it continues to define our approach to air safety negotiations in Europe.
Secondly, decisions on safety matters must be informed by the best evidence available, not just scientific evidence, important as that is, but the wealth of evidence gathered from day-to-day operations. Thirdly, safety rule-makers need to remain objective and to base their decisions on independent and impartial advice.
In the UK, we are fortunate to have the Civil Aviation Authority as our specialist adviser on air safety. The CAA is one of the world’s most respected aviation safety regulators. In Europe, the CAA is the national authority with the most experience of fatigue management. It is independent of Government and, more importantly, it is free from the influence of the aviation industry and other interest groups. The Government and I have the utmost confidence in the CAA’s expertise in this area, and it is right that we should continue to be guided by its independent advice.
The CAA has been at the forefront of work to develop a harmonised set of air safety rules across Europe. The European Aviation Safety Agency is responsible for developing those rules. In doing so, the EASA works closely with national agencies such as the CAA. Harmonised rules are important as there is a single market in air services within the EU. The single market has ensured real competition, benefiting passengers through lower fares and greater choice. Different safety standards in different member states, however, can distort the market and could, if some do not provide a robust level of safety, put flight crews and passengers at risk.
Mrs Ellman
I agree that the Civil Aviation Authority is highly respected and has a very good reputation; nevertheless there are some concerns because, during the course of our inquiry, it expressed reservations about the proposed flight duty period at night but did not object to the European Aviation Safety Agency’s decision, even though it went against scientific advice. The CAA felt the situation could be “actively managed.” In practice, on a given day and in a given crisis or with given pressure of time, how could such a situation be managed? That query does not challenge the CAA as such, but I am asking whether, in not following scientific advice, the CAA has put too much faith in the situation being managed, when in reality that might not happen on every occasion.
Mr Burns
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I will return to this, but, yes, I do have faith in the CAA, because I do not think it is doing what she suggests. I will return to that when I address a number of questions, because it is an important issue and the hon. Lady and others beyond the House, who will be reading the comments of all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, need an answer.
Jim Fitzpatrick
This is a small point, but it has yet to be stated in our deliberations and the Minister may well put something on the record in due course.
We finished considering the Lords amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill on Tuesday. The Bill transfers massive new responsibilities to the Civil Aviation Authority, with which everyone is quite comfortable. Obviously—I am sure this will happen, but I want the Minister to put it on the record—we want safety to remain paramount in the CAA’s responsibilities. Given that the organisation will grow in numbers, organisational strength and structure, will the safety element of its role grow commensurately?
Mr Burns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that safety is paramount. Among other things, safety is the responsibility of the CAA. The CAA’s commitment, and the amount it devotes to ensuring that the safety of the aviation industry and airlines in this country is paramount, will continue, unaffected by the legislation.
I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether it has reassured him, because he has not indicated either way, but I hope it does.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am grateful to the Minister. Obviously, I fully accept his assurances. What was going through my mind was that, notwithstanding those reassurances and the respect I have for the CAA, ultimately we are going to disagree about the conclusions that it has reached on some of the issues we have raised. Unless the Minister can give us further reassurance, there will be question marks in our mind about the length of flight times, the reporting procedures and the balance of evidence. We have to go along with the Government’s objective analysis of all the evidence and with their conclusions because we cannot change them. Obviously, I accept the Minister’s assurances.
Mr Burns
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s last point. I hope that by the time I sit down I will have completely reassured him. If I were a betting man, I would not place a wager on that, but I will do my best to seek to assuage his concerns as much as possible.
Importantly, different safety standards in different member states can distort the market and could, if some do not provide a robust level of safety, put flight crews and passengers at risk, which we all find unacceptable and are united in wanting to address. The harmonised rules will apply directly to all EU airlines, ensuring that UK citizens flying within Europe enjoy the same high safety standards, regardless of where the airline is based.
The flight time limitation requirements are a package of closely interrelated measures that address a number of issues relating to fatigue, including work load, sleep and body clocks, in several different ways. Work load is addressed through setting limits on the length of duty times. The more intensive the work load in terms of take offs and landings, the lower the limit. Additionally, there are medium and long-term limits on duty hours to prevent cumulative fatigue.
Adequate sleep is ensured by the establishment of minimum rest requirements. Body clock issues are addressed by adjusting duty limits according to the time of day the duty starts. There are additional limits if crews are not acclimatised to the local time zone.
I emphasise again that those requirements and limits are closely interrelated. For their effectiveness to be properly understood, they need to be considered together as a package.
Limits are only one aspect of the new proposal. Airlines will also be required to put in place a number of new management processes, including flight time specification schemes tailored to the type of operation being undertaken. Airlines will have to ensure that schedules are planned so that aircrews can operate safely in all circumstances. All aircrews, rostering staff and their managers will have to undergo regular training in fatigue management. The training programme will have to be approved by the CAA.
Additionally, all airlines will be required under separate legislation to have safety-management systems. Under the EASA proposals, those will have to have a specific fatigue risk-management element in certain circumstances. The CAA will be responsible for approving and monitoring airlines’ safety management systems and flight time specification schemes. Airlines will no longer be able to rely solely on complying with fixed limits on flight times. Instead, they will also need to demonstrate how they are managing crew duties to prevent the risk of fatigue from arising in the first place. This part of the EASA proposal is a major step forward. It is very much in line with UK thinking and with international best practice in this field.
Although some provisions of the EASA proposals are slightly less restrictive than the current UK requirements, others are more restrictive. However, as I have said, the new flight time limitations requirements are designed to work as a package of measures. It does not make sense to draw comparisons with the current UK rules by looking at specific limits in isolation.
The CAA looked carefully at the package of new proposals and considered how the various elements will interact. It has assured me that, in its opinion, the package of measures will not lead to any reduction in safety for UK airlines. Moreover, the new proposals are much more stringent than the current EU rules. EASA has identified more than 30 separate provisions where this is the case. For example, it provides for safety improvements in addressing cumulative fatigue, including through extended recovery rest periods twice a month; increasing rest to compensate for time-zone differences and disruptive schedules; and expanding the application of the most restrictive flight duty period to 12 hours between 5 pm and 5 am. That will lead to a substantial improvement in safety across Europe. It is a good deal for UK passengers in today’s single market in air services. When they use any airline from any EU member state, passengers will be protected by the same high standards as those followed by UK airlines.
This is also a good deal for UK airlines, which will no longer have to compete against other EU airlines that follow less stringent rules. It has been suggested that the UK should consider opting out of some or all of the proposed rules or enhancing them. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside raised the matter, but I have to say that this is not an option. We have checked, because there has been a belief that we could add to the proposals that EASA is bringing forward. However, the European Commission has once again confirmed categorically that no member state could do that. It is the package that is accepted. No member state can add on something if it wishes to and, fortunately, no member state can take away anything, either—that is the other side of the coin—which some member states might be interested in doing.
It is fair to say that the Transport Committee itself concluded that the legislation under which these provisions are made rules out the option of a separate UK regulatory regime or an add-on, but I accept that Committee members will have wondered about that in the light of other information that has been bandied around and been in circulation since the Committee produced its report.
I stress that the proposals are currently only an opinion of the European safety regulator. The European Commission has yet to issue its own legislative proposal and we will reserve our final judgment until we see it. We will not vote in favour of the regulation unless the CAA advises us that it provides an appropriate level of safety.
I should like to say something about the use of scientific evidence in developing the proposals, because several hon. Members have raised this matter. Some have expressed concern about this. During the development of its proposals, EASA reviewed more than 50 scientific studies and employed three independent scientists to review its proposals. It also took into account a large amount of operational data and experience across the EU. EASA provided, in the regulatory impact assessment published alongside its opinion, a detailed assessment of the evidence and advice that it considered.
The CAA gave this House, in its evidence to the Transport Committee in February, a detailed account of the procedures followed and the evidence taken into account by both it and EASA. I will not repeat that evidence here. The important thing is that I am satisfied with the CAA’s assurance—that view is shared by EASA and by the CAA’s counterparts in other member states—that a thorough, transparent process has been followed in this case.
The draft legislation imposes a legal obligation on EASA to review the effectiveness of the rules three years after they have come into force. EASA has also said that it plans to carry out further research in a number of areas, to help improve understanding of crew fatigue. The CAA will work closely with EASA to ensure that this research is carried out effectively.
As I have said, we have yet to see a legislative proposal from the Commission. I repeat, to provide reassurance I hope, that we will reserve our final judgment until the CAA has had the opportunity to review that proposal when it is produced.
Mrs Ellman
I feel reassured by some of the Minister’s statement, but on the scientific evidence, I wish to make it clear that the Committee spoke to scientists involved in giving advice and there is concern about the current proposals. It may not be a unanimous decision, but there certainly is concern. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind as he continues to consider the issue.
Mr Burns
I appreciate that. I will certainly bear it in mind. However, from the evidence that I have been given and conversations that I have had with the CAA, I am confident that a thorough review of the 50 studies has been done. I do not want to be flippant, but I suspect that scientists can, at times, be a bit like economists, in that they will have different views or will place emphasis differently on solutions to problems or issues, and that might be a part of what is behind the discussions or conversations the hon. Lady has had. But that does not detract from my initial point that I am confident, from the assurances that I have had, that the review of 50 independent scientific studies by independent scientists has been done thoroughly and properly.
I repeat that we have not yet seen the legislative proposals from the Commission and we will reserve our final judgment until the CAA has had the opportunity to review those proposals and form a view. I hope that that is reassuring.
I shall answer questions in no particular order. I may have misheard the hon. Lady and if I did I hope that she will forgive me. I think she mentioned an EASA meeting last week. Is that correct?
Mrs Ellman
Yes. I was informed recently that there was an EASA meeting last week and that a number of member states—not the UK—raised concerns and that, as a result, an emergency EASA meeting was called. I was seeking confirmation or otherwise of whether that is so.
Mr Burns
That is helpful, because I was genuinely confused. The advice that I had—I will check it, because it is at such variance with what the hon. Lady has been told—is that we are not aware of any meeting that took place last week. We are aware of an EASA committee meeting in October at which the proposals were discussed, and no member state raised any significant concerns about them. As I said, we will check that, and I will ensure that she is informed of the results.
Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked a number of questions arising from the recommendations of the Select Committee report. As both of them will know, the Government have responded to those recommendations. The responses that we gave are still our responses, and we still believe in them. I could go through them one by one, but I suspect that Opposition Members in particular would not want to hear the sound of my voice for quite that long. However, I can confirm, particularly on the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman, that our responses on all issues linked directly to the recommendations of the Select Committee report are as valid today as when we published our response. I hope that is satisfactory.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I certainly hear what the Minister is saying. In one or two of my comments, I was acknowledging the Government’s published response while seeking a bit more information. For example, as he says, the new regulations have not been introduced, so I was asking what the time frame was for EASA coming forward, the Commission considering regulations and national consultation. Recognising what the Government have said in response to the Select Committee recommendations, I was seeking elaboration on one or two points, not reiteration. I certainly do not expect the Minister to read into the record the Government’s lengthy responses to the Select Committee recommendations.
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The only downside of not doing so is that people will not have the opportunity to hear once again the wisdom of the Government’s responses to the excellent report by the hon. Lady’s Committee. However, I accept what he says.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the time scale for adoption. As I said, we are waiting for the Commission to introduce legislative proposals. We expect that the regulation adopting the implementing rules will come into force next summer, but will allow a transitional period of two years before the requirements become applicable. That is the best advice I have at the moment. As he will appreciate, it is outside our control, but we assume that EASA and the European Commission intend to stick as closely to that timetable as possible.
The hon. Lady asked how the CAA will tackle the under-reporting of fatigue. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with her point, because I believe that the problem is potentially serious if it is happening on the scale of the poll that she referred to. I do not cast doubts on the poll, but we lack clear evidence of the extent of the problem. However, as we said in our response to the Committee’s recommendation, the CAA is investigating possible under-reporting. I understand from what she said, conversations that I have had with the British Airline Pilots Association and my correspondence on the subject with constituents of mine that in certain cases, there may be an incentive for people to under-report for a variety of reasons. We must change the culture. We need an open and transparent system so that we know exactly what the level of the problem is, if there is one, and how to minimise it. It would seem from the poll that the problem has persisted under the existing rules, never mind what some people say might happen under any changes.
Jim Fitzpatrick
The Minister gave a good explanation of the new reporting procedures and fatigue management systems that airlines will have to introduce. That is reassuring, because it is far more structured, but one point of the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside raised is this. Notwithstanding that the airlines will compile their own data, how does that compare with the confidential reporting systems that exist at the moment, in which pilots can report directly to the CAA? Will those lines of communication still exist? It might be easier for a pilot to send a confidential e-mail or, more likely, a verbal report to the CAA if they want to tell somebody that they are worried. Telling their employer could be entirely different; they might be worried about future employment, promotion prospects and so on.
Mr Burns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As he said, an individual would find it easier to report directly to the CAA, so that brings more openness and honesty to the reporting system. He is absolutely right, and that is why the system will continue. Individuals will continue to have the opportunity to make contact through that channel.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside talked about what happened to flights that reached the maximum limit permitted under the proposals and the need to report to national aviation authorities as part of an open and transparent approach. The new EU implementing rules governing the oversight of operators will come into force later this year. The rules will give national aviation authorities the power and responsibility to monitor all aspects of the application and performance of any flight time limitation.
The Government share the Committee’s concern on the theoretical length of the flight duty period. EASA has acted on the UK’s advice and amended the proposal to limit the combination of stand-by and flight duty periods to a maximum of 16 hours, as I mentioned to the hon. Lady in an intervention during her comments. I hope that goes some way to reassuring her.
To the best of knowledge, and looking at my notes, I think I have covered the main points made by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside and for Poplar and Limehouse, as well as embracing the spirit of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South. In concluding, I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues on the Transport Committee for their work and for the care that they took to produce an important and interesting report. We considered it carefully before responding. I have sought to reassure hon. Members about more of the background, the Government’s attitude and what we and the CAA have been doing.
I will conclude on this final point—made for the third time—to ensure that people can be reassured, as I hope they can: we will wait for the publication of the proposals and the CAA’s final recommendations and views before we take any definitive action on this important issue. The Government are as determined today as they were yesterday, and as the previous Government were, to ensure that the safety of passengers and those working on aircraft and in the aviation industry is paramount.
Resolved, That the sitting be now adjourned.— (Mr Simon Burns.)