Queen’s Speech

My Lords, I apologise for not being present for the opening speeches. I became chairman of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee at 3.15 pm, and the committee met at 3.30. Much as I welcome the gracious Speech, I take this opportunity to raise concerns about a matter that was not mentioned—namely, the impact of proposed changes in regulations on flying hours over the whole of Europe, including this country, which could have serious implications for safety. I draw attention to the uncertainty felt by the British Airline Pilots Association about the strength of the Government’s resolve on this issue. Flight-time limitations exist to prevent pilot fatigue, and the rules of the scheme in this country to which flight scheduling staff work are based on Civil Aviation Authority regulation CAP 371: The Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrews. Its effect is to ensure that air crews’ flying hours are not excessive and should allow for sufficient rest between duties. Even with these regulations in force, a recent independent survey found that one in four pilots were fatigued by the end of their duty, and a third said that their companies’ rostering practices did not ensure sufficient rest. That in itself should be cause for concern, but the reality is potentially worse. Since July 2008, all EU member states have to operate under EU-OPS regulation, subpart Q. However, thanks to the United Kingdom’s safety record, the EU accepted that the UK could continue to use regulation CAP 371, which provides for much stricter safety standards than subpart Q. However, that is about to change. In 2012 the European Aviation Safety Agency will take control of European flight time limitations, and its proposed rules substantially water down the Civil Aviation Authority’s regulation CAP 371. The British Airline Pilots Association and its fellow pilot organisations that comprise the European Cockpit Association argued that subpart Q needed a major scientific review on the grounds that this safety-critical issue should be taken out of the traditional negotiating arena and placed in the scientific one. The European Aviation Safety Agency accepted this argument and commissioned a medical and scientific study of the regulations. Drawing together the findings of 10 respected scientists from across Europe, the Moebus report was presented in September 2008 and published in January 2009. It identified several key areas in which improvements must be made to ensure that pilot fatigue can be avoided and flight safety protected. Were the scientific recommendations to be implemented, we would see a welcome levelling-up of standards in Europe and the end of airlines undercutting each other through lower safety standards. If the scientific recommendations are ignored, the race to the bottom will gather speed, with a potentially serious increase in risk to the public. Under pressure from airline operators who have been scathing about the Moebus report—which had the temerity to place safety before commercial interests—and with the European Commission and Parliament appearing to be distant bystanders, the European Aviation Safety Agency is ignoring the scientists’ recommendations and ploughing on regardless. In a letter dated 14 October, the chair of the Civil Aviation Authority said: ""The Civil Aviation Authority cannot ensure that scientific evidence is taken into account by the European Aviation Safety Agency"." Neither, I fear, can the Government; so 2012 could be the death knell of safe fatigue rules. The principle of non-regression, which allowed the United Kingdom to opt out by continuing to operate the Civil Aviation Authority’s regulation CAP 371, will be abandoned. I hope that the Minister will spell out what the Government are doing to prevent a lowering of flight safety standards being imposed upon us from 2012. This is a matter of sufficient importance to merit the involvement of the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that he will agree to meet the British Airline Pilots Association to discuss how BALPA and the Government can work together to resist any moves to lower the standards for flight time limitation in the Civil Aviation Authority’s regulation CAP 371, which has been in existence, supported by Governments and backed by scientific knowledge, for the past 19 years. I hope that the Minister will respond to this point as well. What are the differences between European law and the scientific recommendations in the Moebus report, which are much more in line with Civil Aviation Authority regulation CAP 371, which the Government support? European law says that a day duty for pilots of up to 14 hours is acceptable. The scientific recommendations in the Moebus report say that that is excessive and should be reduced. For a night duty, European law says 11 hours 45 minutes; the Moebus report says that this should be reduced to 10 hours. On weekly working time, European law says 180 hours in 21 days; the Moebus report says that this is inadequate since it allows three consecutive weeks of 60 working hours, and that a limit of 100 hours in 14 consecutive days is needed. On standby, European law says that a pilot can be assigned a full duty of 14 hours any time during standby; the Moebus report says that standby should be counted as flight duty for the calculation of maximum duty. The European Aviation Safety Agency has produced the first draft of its rules implementing flight and duty time limits, which are inferior—assuming that one is more concerned with safety than commercial interests—to those contained in the Civil Aviation Authority’s regulation CAP 371. It was apparently due to time constraints that it was not possible for the European Aviation Safety Agency to take account of the results of the scientific study into flight and duty time limits. However, one wonders what kind of safety agency it is that cannot organise itself in such a way as to make sure that credible scientific evidence is available on which to base its initial draft proposals. Although the European Aviation Safety Agency has expressed the intention of preparing a second draft of the implementing rules, there are no guarantees that there will be any changes from the deeply disturbing first draft, and, if the first draft is not changed, we will not be able to opt out and retain our present long-standing higher standards under CAP 371. Surely we do not want to find that our involvement in Europe leads to a lowering of our standards for flight time regulations, attractive though that would probably be to some European low-cost and charter airlines and to some of the airlines in nations that have recently become part of the European Union where industrial agreements have not kept standards above the present inadequate common EU rules, from which we are currently able to opt out. I hope that when my noble friend winds up, he will be able to address the concerns that I have raised and respond to the specific questions I have asked.