§ Mr. John Smith(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the decision of the Civil Aviation Authority to reinstate the certificate of airworthiness of British operated DC10s.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit)Since the Civil Aviation Authority suspended the certificate of airworthiness of British-registered DC10s it has been in close touch with the American Federal Aviation Administration and with European aeronautical authorities. The European authorities have had a number of meetings culminating in a meeting in Zurich on Monday at which new maintenance and inspection procedures for the DC10 were agreed. The Federal Aviation Administration had an observer at that meeting.
As my hon. Friend explained on 11 June, the issue of certificates of airworthiness is a matter for the CAA, which has laid upon it by section 27(2) of the Civil Aviation Act the duty to consult the Airworthiness Requirements Board
on all matters appearing to the Authority to be of significance as respects the standards of design, construction and maintenance by reference to which certificates of airworthiness for aircraft are to be granted or renewed in pursuance of Air Navigation Ordersand no powers of direction are given to the Secretary of State in this regard. The board of the CAA, having consulted the Airworthiness Requirements Board, decided, in the light of the information obtained from the FAA and of the new maintenance and inspection procedures, that it should restore the certificates of 1320 airworthiness of British-registered DC10s. This it did yesterday after being satisfied that the aircraft involved had been subjected to the new and more stringent inspection procedures.In addition to DC10s on the British register, other European aeronautical authorities have reinstated the certificates of airworthiness of their aircraft. I understand from the CAA that the FAA has throughout this time given it the fullest information and co-operation.
§ Mr. SmithDoes the Under-Secretary of State appreciate that while co-operation may have been given, the Federal Aviation Administration appears to be criticising the decision of the Civil Aviation Authority? Docs he not think that it is most unsatisfactory that there now appear to be competing judgments on the safety of the DC10s with the Civil Aviation Authority and some other European authorities in open dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration? Would it not have been wiser for the Civil Aviation Authority to await the conclusion of the Federal Aviation Administration inquiry into the cause of the Chicago accident before restoring these certificates? Will the Under-Secretary take steps to cause joint consultations to be held between the Federal Aviation Administration, the Civil Aviation Authority and any other relevant authorities, so that air passengers from the United Kingdom and other countries have a clear idea whether this aircraft is safe? In the present situation, apparently, the United States, Japan and Yugoslavia take a difftrent view from that of the United Kingdom and other European countries.
§ Mr. TebbitI am not aware that the Federal Aviation Administration has made any direct criticism of the Civil Aviation Authority's actions in this respect. I would be somewhat surprised if that were so. We certainly make no criticism of the actions of the Federal Aviation Administraton. I think that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that conditions in the two countries are somewhat different, that maintenance procedures have been different and that, above all, the Civil Aviation Authority has, as it is bound to do by statute, taken the advice of the Airworthiness Requirements Board in this matter. I do not think that it is proper for me, or indeed for the right hon. 1321 Gentleman, to cast doubts upon the competence or integrity of the Airworthiness Requirements Board, which must arise if one questions the wisdom of our authority in recertificating. I do not question the wisdom of the Americans. That is a matter for their authorities. We have acted properly in relation to ours.
§ Mr. OnslowDoes my hon. Friend accept that those of us who know the reputation and integrity of those responsible for this very difficult decision also know that they will not have taken it lightly or irresponsibly? Can he assure us that there are close and continuing contacts between the accident investigation branch of the CAA and the Federal Aviation Administration? Can he also say, as I imagine must be the case, that the Civil Aviation Authority has satisfied itself about all aspects of passenger operation of these aircraft, including insurance cover? Will he also tell us—because this is of interest—whether it has been thought necessary to make any change in the noise abatement regime under which these aircraft have hitherto operated in British airports?
§ Mr. TebbitThe accident investigation department of my Department has been in touch throughout this affair with the Federal Aviation Administration and I am informed that there is a full interchange of information. The question of the insurance of the aircraft is a matter for the relevant companies. It is not a matter for me or the Government. As for the operating procedures for the aircraft, I understand that in the light of the Chicago accident consideration has been given to the broad question whether the procedures for the immediate action of crews following the loss of power by an aircraft on take-off should be reviewed or not. That is a rather long-term and more general matter.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisIs the Minister aware that the Federal Aviation Administration has expressed its dismay that European authorities have given this aircraft a clean bill of health, in view of the fact that it has not come to a conclusion on the question whether the aircraft suffers from a fundamental design fault? Is he aware that a dispute of this kind, which is completely unprecedented, must sow the seeds of great anxiety in the minds of many passengers? What is the position of a 1322 passenger who seeks to avoid a contract because he has doubts about this aircraft and is refused the ability to do so—as I understand has happened today—by Laker Airways? Is it not outrageous that people who entertain these very strong doubts should be pressed into flying in an aircraft in which they do not want to fly?
§ Mr. TebbitIf the hon. Gentleman takes that attitude he can only be inviting me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to intervene and instruct the Civil Aviation Authority not to act in accordance with advice that it has been given. There are two difficulties in that context. First, as I have already explained, we do not have the powers in that regard. Secondly, I think that if the hon. Gentleman or anybody else in this House has such touching faith in my technical competence in this matter that he believes that I should override the advice given by the Airworthiness Requirements Board and the CAA, I am happy to receive the compliment. However, I do not believe that hon. Members should rely upon my successors, for all time, having the same degre of technical competence as even I have.
§ Mr. AdleyIs my hon. Friend aware that some of us regard the behaviour of the FAA in this matter as questionable, to say the least—particularly the way in which it first of all tried to damn the European airbus by association, and the way in which, ever since, it has behaved apparently with far more emotion than logic in all its decisions? If, as my hon. Friend says—most of us would agree with him—confidence is to remain in the Civil Aviation Authority and its European counterparts, and if the FAA is going to begin behaving as it has in the last few weeks, is there not a need to strengthen the European authorities which look after aviation so that the people dealing with these things take a rather less emotive view of them than the FAA has shown in the last few weeks?
§ Mr. TebbitI note what my hon. Friend says. I have confidence in the CAA. Indeed, if we did not have confidence in that authority it would be incumbent upon us to sack its members and to replace them with people in whom we did have confidence. There can be no half-measures about this matter. I 1323 have no responsibility whatever for the actions of the Federal Aviation Administration. I do not criticise them, condone them, or praise them. That is a matter for the elected representatives of the American people and not for those of the British people.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is an extension of Question Time, but I will call three more hon. Members on either side.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a question of fact: in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith), the Minister said that the conditions in the two countries were different. Technology knows no frontiers. How are they different?
§ Mr. TebbitIf the hon. Gentleman reads the technical press he will see plenty of examples of the way in which the conditions are different—in relation, for example, to the procedures that have been adopted for maintenance. We have our procedures; the Americans have theirs.
§ Mr. McCrindleOne accepts that it would be irresponsible in the extreme to cast doubts either on the decision made by the CAA or on its competence to make that decision, but would my hon. Friend nevertheless take on board the fact that some of us are a little puzzled to know why the CAA felt that it must automatically follow the approach of the American authorities 10 days ago whereas it does not feel so obliged today? Is there, to his knowledge, any additional information flowing to the CAA that it did not have when the Minister of State made a statement on Monday of last week?
§ Mr. TebbitYes, indeed. The CAA has since then received the advice of the Airworthiness Requirements Board, which has considered all the information made available to it by the FAA and has also reconsidered the maintenance procedures in use both in the United States and here.
§ Mr. WilkinsonCan my hon. Friend say whether a representative of the manufacturers, McDonnell Douglas, was present at the meeting between European operators and European airworthiness 1324 authorities in Zurich? Is it not a fact that the United Kingdom operators—Laker, British Caledonian and British Airways, which leases two aeroplanes from Air New Zealand—operate the Mark 30—the longer range DC10—which so far has had no instances of cracking in the engine mounting pylon, and that in the case of Trident there was a difference between different marks of aeroplane in respect of fatigue in wing structures?
§ Mr. TebbitI cannot say whether a representative of the manufacturers was present at the meeting to which my hon. Friend refers. I note what my hon. Friend says about the differences between the DC10-10 series and the 30 and 40 series, but I would not advise him to make too much of any difference in the particular marks of aircraft concerned.
§ Mr. PenhaligonI believe that the Minister was at one time a pilot himself. Would he be prepared to fly the plane? If the answer is "Yes", what has restored his confidence in the last two or three weeks?
§ Mr. TebbitI should certainly be prepared to fly the aeroplane, as I flew others for about 20 years in commercial service. As for what has happened in recent weeks, I repeat that in consideration of the information made available to the ARB and the CAA, those authorities have decided that it is prudent and safe to recertificate the aeroplane. That information was not available in the immediate aftermath of the Chicago disaster. Therefore, it was prudent and proper that our authorities should suspend the certificate of airworthiness following the decision of the American authorities to do the same.
§ Mr. WellbelovedI was going to ask the Minister exactly the same question as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. In that case—
§ Mr. Wellbeloved—but with different phrasing—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied, I should be obliged; then I could call someone else.
§ Mr. WellbelovedThe Minister is absolutely satisfied, is he not, in view of his former occupation as a civil airline 1325 pilot and since he has had access to the whole of Government advice in this matter, that he is prepared in this House to give unqualified assurance to passengers to fly in the DC10?
§ Mr. TebbitI think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member would have been better advised to take the hint which you offered him. I have not been a party—nor would it be proper or sensible for me to be a party—to the considerations in the ARB or the CAA, so there is no question of my being privy to information that is not generally available.
§ Mr. WellbelovedAnswer the question.
§ Mr. TebbitThe hon. Gentleman asks whether I will give an assurance of safety in connection with the aeroplane. He will get from me what I choose to give him and not what he chooses to ask for. I will give him what it is proper for a Minister to give and not what he asks for, which is something that it is impossible for anyone to give. There is no such thing in the world as an unqualified assurance of safety of anything—
§ Mr. WellbelovedOr endorsement.
§ Mr. Tebbit—or endorsement of safety of anything. What I can give the hon. Gentleman is an unqualified endorsement of my support of the CAA, which I believe is competent and has properly carried out its functions as they were laid upon it by statute.
§ Mr. Michael MorrisIs it not correct for the Minister, as an ex-pilot—I ask the question as another ex-pilot—to be absolutely confident in the airworthiness certificate issued by the authorities? Any pilot must accept that. Is he aware, as many hon. Members are, that the one worrying aspect is to do not with the aircraft 1326 but with the FAA's questioning whether the aircraft is airworthy if it loses an engine? That is in fact the lingering doubt. It has nothing to do with the current running or maintenance of the aircraft. Will he ensure that those responsible for the airworthiness of the aeroplane have this point drawn to their attention?
§ Mr. TebbitI note what my hon. Friend says. I can give him a better assurance than that which he seeks. The matter has been at the forefront of the attention of those concerned—as it is natural and proper that it should be—and they have assured me that they are satisfied in the matter.