§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)Most people have only one annual holiday, which they save for throughout the year. Therefore, it is very important to them to know not only that they are protected by correct safety laws, but that they will receive proper protection from their country's legislation.
Over past months, I have become increasingly concerned about the number of cheap holidays advertised, which means that many holidaymakers buy holidays but are not aware that, in some cases, a holiday advertised by a perfectly reputable travel agent may not necessarily have behind it either an aircraft or even an aircraft slot that would allow a flight to land at a particular airport at a particular time.
I believe that almost all our holidaymakers would be confused if we were to ask them to what protection they are entitled. Most people who buy a British holiday from a travel agent assume that they are reasonably safe—which has always been the case in the past. Unfortunately, there has recently been a growth in the numbers of brokers who lease planes after they have already sold the holiday, and in the numbers of tour companies that do not have confirmed aircraft or proper planning to run holidays in the manner in which they were presented to the tourist.
Does that matter? It matters enormously. A responsible airport authority will respond quickly if an airline does not have permission to land an aircraft at a particular airport at a particular time, but which instead exercises a mild form of blackmail and tells air traffic control, "We have so many hundreds of British holidaymakers on board. We therefore must land—otherwise, there may be a problem". But that is not a good basis on which to organise a travel industry.
In April, therefore, I wrote to the Secretary of State to set out some of my worries about travel companies, check-in procedures, the way in which international rules are applied, and the actions that Britain is taking to ensure that we are complying in every way with necessary safety standards. I am not overwhelmingly impressed by the fact that I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 April but received a reply only this morning, 2 July. The Department should not be commended on its sense of urgency in this matter.
The letter is astonishingly complacent. I should explain that all the countries with which we normally deal are party to the Chicago convention, and that they should adhere to its rules. Some time ago, the Federal Aviation Administration in America—which is also party to the Chicago convention—became concerned about the safety of American nationals, and instigated a series of checks. Some of the checks were audits on the ground, but many of them consisted of banning or limiting the action of certain foreign airlines.
In conjunction with the Governments concerned, the FAA went to the countries in which those flights originated, and checked on safety standards and maintenance. In fact, that exceeds the requirements of the Chicago convention, and many people would say that it was breaking some of the convention's terms.
The FAA took those actions because it believed that American nationals on holiday needed to be protected. When I began to question the Government about our 927 reaction to some of the difficulties, I was appalled to be given what I can only call the brush-off. I asked, for example, whether we were following an action plan similar to the FAA's. I received a reply that said, "You should ask the FAA." On a Sunday afternoon, I managed to obtain information from the Internet about which countries and which categories were banned—information that Her Majesty's Government were unwilling or unable to give me.
Moreover, the FAA, when asked, provided me with someone who was prepared to come to London to talk to me about the airline safety records of various countries. The FAA not only maintains long lists—which constantly change, because it is a moving operation—of countries which it believes have safety problems, but instigates talks with people in those countries. Many of the airlines that fly into the UK are already on the FAA's banned or limited list.
I was very concerned about that. However, I have been told in this letter—which I have read only very briefly—"We are not concerned about the FAA. We have carefully considered the implications of the FAA programme for our dealings with the states in question." It states:
We have concluded that we could reasonably take the FAA findings as evidence that something may be wrong … we are less convinced that as signatories to the Chicago Convention we could, or indeed should, simply replicate FAA action".If that is the Government's attitude—fine.Why is this issue so important? I recently received a letter from a holidaymaker who had been on the "notorious" Excalibur flight. The letter is from a very sensible family, who wrote to the reservations manager of Globespan to set out some of what had happened to them on their outward and inward flights. It states, first, that there were
Severe problems on outgoing flight, due to lack of ticketsand that there was no clear information about the plane.The letter continues:
Despite numerous telephone calls, three separate sets of tickets failed to arrive, until the day before departure.Flight 066 split between two different airlines, causing a further three-hour delay. Despite claims this was unforeseenthe staff handed out pre-printed letters. I do not know whether that means that the airline foresees that it will have problems not with particular flights but with every flight. It does not inspire confidence.The letter goes on:
All party members seated separatelyin the aircraft, resulting in some small children being separated from their parents. There were "foreign-speaking cabin staff", and, despite the fact that it was a daylight flight, they were ordered to keep the cabin in darkness.The return flight was even more horrific. The letter states:
Following check-in, three fire engines and men in breathing apparatus working on the plane, causing initial concern and delay".They were informed at last that the plane was ready. An announcement was made for the front half of the plane to board, but the rear-half passengers would have to wait, because the mechanics had not finished. The captain announced that the delay had been caused by an electrical fault. That was rectified, and the plane was ready to take off.928 They then experienced a further, absolutely horrifying catalogue of problems, including finding themselves in a smoke-filled plane. Eventually, 91 of the passengers refused to travel on the plane, and had either to find their own way back or to sit up in the airport all night. That is scarcely a sensible way to operate any airline.
I then inquired into not only Excalibur but Air Ops. Air Operations, or Air Ops, is a company which has produced a series of most interesting names, and which keeps reappearing. I have been questioning the Department about it for some time. Air Ops recently went into liquidation, but has been resurrected as Air Ops International. It is currently applying for permission to operate between the United Kingdom and various European destinations.
The company is Swedish-registered, and all the safety inquiries that I have made of the Department were met with the answer that this country has no problems with Swedish air safety standards, and is quite happy to accept Swedish-registered planes. That is fine—we should be happy to do so when we know that safety standards are equal to ours—but if someone leases a plane, parks it at a British airport, fills it with British holidaymakers, flies it, possibly with a foreign-speaking crew, to a third country, returns it to Britain and parks it at the same airport without ever returning it to its country of origin or the country where it is registered, it must be clear that it is not undergoing either spot checks or day-to-day monitoring. It is true in the abstract that Swedish safety laws are excellent, but if an aircraft never goes back into Swedish air space, how on earth do we know that its safety standards are being maintained?
Let us consider Air Ops in detail. The company is owned by Thomas Johansson. Mr. Johansson was formerly involved with airlines such as Time Air, Omega Air and Sultan Air, all of which have gone into liquidation. As I said, Air Ops has been resurrected as Air Ops International. It is clear that not only individual holidaymakers but the Civil Aviation Authority has been having difficulties. I asked what debts were owed to the CAA by Sultan Air when it went into receivership. I also asked what was happening about flights operated by Air Operations Europe as a result of the High Court ruling of 10 October 1994, and about Omega Air and the other companies.
The reply that I received was very instructive. I was told that Sultan Air left no outstanding debts, but that, on 10 October, the High Court ruled that Air Operations Europe had been the operator of a particular aircraft against which the CAA obtained an order of sale, and that, at a further hearing on 14 November, the High Court ruled that, unless payment of outstanding route charges and the CAA's costs was made, the CAA would be at liberty to proceed with the sale. Not surprisingly, the money was forthcoming, so no detention action was taken against that aircraft. When it is explained in detail what is happening with other aircraft, it becomes clear that, whenever difficulties arise, these companies simply go into liquidation, and then reinvent themselves under another title.
I asked the Secretary of State for Transport to place in the Library copies of an operations certificate issued to Air Operations Europe. I was told that the certificate of airworthiness for the particular aircraft about which I had made inquiries
was withdrawn after problems were found during routine maintenance and the aircraft was therefore not allocated to any particular flight".929 I was told that, if I wanted to know anything else, I should ask the Swedes.I have a strange, old-fashioned idea that British Members of Parliament have the right to question the Government of the day about the safety in the air of British nationals in their own country. It is not adequate to deal with the matter by talking to the FAA or the Swedish authorities. I am happy to do so, but I am now asking the Government what they intend to do, and how.
I also asked questions about many of the countries on the FAA's list, which is, in effect, its list of forbidden countries. I asked why a country such as Ghana was receiving assistance although the FAA thought that there were problems with it. I also asked about Bulgaria, which was an education in itself. The Government acknowledged that the Department had
received 36 passenger complaints alleging various problems or deficiencies with flights using aircraft registered in Bulgaria. The Department asked the UK Civil Aviation Authority to conduct an independent assessment to ensure that International Civil Aviation Organisation standards were being applied. This assessment was carried out in February 1996".—[Official Report, 1 July 1996; Vol. 280. c. 348–49.]That does not say whether the result was good or bad, but there are still a number of difficulties, and it is clear that a number of countries are flying aeroplanes here to pick up British holidaymakers, although there is reason to doubt that they know what they are doing and whether the holidaymakers are being carried in all safety.
I have a number of urgent things to ask the Government. I want them to take immediate action on air audits. We must know whether the pilots of foreign aircraft are complying with the correct safety rules, whether they fly when suffering from fatigue, how many hours they fly, and whether they are safely in control of the aircraft. Holidaymakers must know that a foreign aircraft is insured to the same level as a British one, and offers the same protection. It is no good demanding that when it is too late, and when passengers have been put in a highly dangerous situation.
Furthermore, the Government must revise their attitude towards spot checks, almost irrespective of an aeroplane's country of origin. If we know that aircraft are flying in and out of this country without returning to their country of origin for checks, we must ensure that we do the work that should be done in the country of origin.
It is absolutely essential that we give holidaymakers the right to ask for their money back if, when they arrive at an airport, they are offered an aeroplane that does not comply with the information given to them at the time of booking. At the time of booking, people should be told the flight, the carrier and the conditions under which they are to fly. Such matters cannot be got ignored by saying that we are party to international rules, and that, if we comply with them, everything is being done to protect British holidaymakers.
There has been an enormous burgeoning of cheap holidays—more and more people are flying around the globe on holiday with their families. This means that many companies are moving in on this trade, without providing the proper protection. They are prepared to break the law, to use crews who do not speak English, and sometimes to put pressure on the air traffic control 930 services. This will not do. The Minister is looking at his watch, because he thinks that I am being ungenerous in not leaving him more time.
In view of the questions that I have been asking and the pressure that I have been putting on the Department of Transport, the Government have known for three months how concerned I have been. Even so, they managed to reply to my initial letter, sent on 23 April, only this morning. If that is an indication of the urgency with which the Government intend to address the problem, all that is left for individual Members of Parliament to do is to make public our very real fears about the way in which British holidaymakers are being carried abroad—in what may be sub-standard aircraft on substandard tours. I do not want this situation to continue. We must protect our holidaymakers on every holiday.
§ The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), with her customary perceptiveness, notes that I am concerned about the time I have available to respond to the points she has made. She knows very well that, the longer she talks, the less time I have to reply. If there are items with which I am not able to deal fully, I shall write to her. I will write to her on the Balkan Bulgarian Airlines issue.
The most recent check on Ghana Airways was on 16 May. Standards on one or two on-board safety items only just met International Civil Aviation Organisation standards, but they were not sufficiently worrying for the aeroplane concerned to warrant detention. If the hon. Lady wants to ask further questions about that, or about any of the other issues she raised, I shall be happy for her to do so.
I rather agree with the hon. Lady on Air Ops. If there is a disparity between the place of registration of the airline and its principal centre of operations, we must be satisfied that that does not allow lower standards than should apply to such an operation. I note the hon. Lady's points on that.
The hon. Lady is rightly concerned about holidaymakers travelling on chartered foreign aircraft. Last year, more than 30 million passengers were carried on all charters from the United Kingdom—an increase of 40 per cent. over the past four years. Around 86 per cent. of those passengers were carried by UK airlines, a fairly constant share.
There is no evidence that the proportion of charter passengers carried by foreign airlines has increased. Of course, the absolute number has increased as the total demand has risen, but I do not consider that this need be a cause for concern. Many of the airlines taking holiday tours and many of the aircraft used are regularly involved in other air services, such as scheduled flights to and from the United Kingdom.
Flying on foreign aircraft does not mean flying on unsafe aircraft. Foreign aircraft, like British aircraft, are subject to internationally agreed safety controls and standards. I should like to take a few minutes to describe the safety system under which international aviation operates.
The fundamental basis, as the hon. Lady suggests, is the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO. The signatories to it accept and comply with the annexes 931 to the Chicago convention, which establishes a number of minimum standards for the safe operation of aircraft. The system of mutual interdependence is reinforced by specific articles in the convention, including an obligation that states will accept certificates and licences provided by another state, as long as ICAO safety standards are being met by that state.
The hon. Lady made great play of the Federal Aviation Administration investigations. I make it clear to her that the ICAO system is the only practical and sensible way in which international aviation can operate. It would simply not be practicable for every state to check every flight entering its borders against its own national standards. However, that does not preclude a state making checks if it has grounds to question whether the ICAO safety standards are being met. If states have no evidence, they have no right to make checks, which is a clearly established principle.
So we have an international system, which we firmly believe is the only practicable basis for organising safety worldwide, backed up by domestic legislation in the UK. That legislation provides that, with the exception of European Economic Area airlines performing intra-EEA flights, which do not need a permit, all other airlines wishing to perform a public transport service to or from the United Kingdom must obtain a permit from the Department. Before that permit is granted, we must be satisfied on a number of points.
The key points are as follows. First, has the airline been approved by its authorities as being competent to operate the type of flight concerned? Secondly, has the aircraft been certified as airworthy by the aeronautical authority of the country of registration? Thirdly, does the airline have adequate insurance?
Confirmation of those points is normally obtained by the airline submitting appropriate documentation. If we have any doubts about whether the documents are valid or whether they are issued on the basis of ICAO standards, we do not issue a permit until those doubts have been resolved. That may mean that we have to consult the authorities in the country concerned, or we may ask the Civil Aviation Authority to visit the country to clarify safety oversight procedures.
Once a permit has been granted, we continue to monitor the safety standards of the airline and the country concerned. If we have evidence to suggest that safety standards may no longer be meeting ICAO requirements, my Department makes the appropriate checks. Again, that may mean consulting the overseas authority, but the Department may also ask the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct a physical inspection of aircraft at a UK airport.
§ Mrs. DunwoodyHow often?
§ Mr. NorrisIf such checks reveal serious safety concerns, the authority can detain the aircraft, and the Department can withhold permits. The hon. Lady asks how often inspections are carried out. If she had been listening to what I have been saying, she would have known that the instigation for such inspections is the one I have just outlined. Incidentally, I note in the 1996–97 programme inspections of Nigeria Airways, Viasa of Venezuela, Ghana Airways, Air Zimbabwe, Cameroon Airlines and Syrian Arab Airlines. If the hon. Lady wants evidence of any further inspections, I shall be happy to provide it.
932 The procedures apply to holiday flights involving foreign aircraft, just as they do to other flights. There are three ways in which foreign aircraft may be involved. First, a foreign airline may offer a flight directly to the public to its own country. Secondly, a UK airline may lease a foreign aircraft for a holiday flight. Thirdly, tour operators may charter foreign aircraft for flights between the United Kingdom and a country that is not that aircraft's country of registration—so-called fifth freedom charters. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping announced on 19 June the results of a review of these fifth freedom operations, and I will return to that in a second. I emphasise that all these flights are equally subject to the safety procedures I have just outlined.
As UK operators are subject also to certain European legislation, there are additional procedures to be followed for flights involving foreign aircraft leased with their crews to United Kingdom operators. Under EC regulations, member states are required to satisfy themselves that leased aircraft will be operating to standards equivalent to those applied to their own carriers.
UK airlines wishing to lease foreign aircraft require permission from the Department of Transport, and prior approval of the operation from the CAA. Where the CAA does not know enough about the foreign airline or about the standards imposed by its regulatory authority, it will carry out a safety audit of the carrier and the authority to satisfy itself that UK equivalent standards are being met. The cost is met by the UK airline wishing to lease the foreign-registered aircraft.
We have taken a number of steps recently to improve the effectiveness of the international system and the oversight of foreign aircraft. Some were announced by my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping on 10 January, and we have built on them subsequently. On the international front, we are assisting ICAO in the implementation of a programme to monitor member states' adherence to the ICAO safety standards.
Our latest information is that 35 states have requested ICAO teams to visit them, six of which had been visited by mid-May. CAA inspectors are due to take part in a number of forthcoming visits. This initiative is vital, because it tackles the safety problems at source; we are firmly committed to it.
We are similarly committed to European initiatives, which have been accelerated by the Puerto Plata accident in the Dominican Republic, in which a number of German holidaymakers were killed. The European Civil Aviation Conference—ECAC—is putting in place a safety assessment programme. The first priority will be to ensure that information about possible safety problems is collected and disseminated to all ECAC members to help them monitor the operation of aircraft to and from their country.
This means that, in the United Kingdom, we shall have access to more evidence about the standards of aircraft carrying our holidaymakers on which to decide whether to withhold permission for particular flights or to ask the CAA to inspect particular aircraft. It also means that ECAC will be able to put together the evidence from a wide range of sources about the way in which safety standards are being applied by foreign aeronautical authorities, and to identify states that need to be assessed in depth.
The ECAC initiative is the basis of proposals drawn up by the European Commission, which were presented to the June Transport Council. My Department took part in 933 the high-level group chaired by the Commission, which discussed the proposals, and will make whatever contribution it can to the further work for which the Council has called.
What about action here at home? We announced in January that we had tightened up the procedures for considering permit applications, particularly for foreign carriers wishing to operate to the United Kingdom using a leased aircraft registered in a third country. A statement is now required from the applicant setting out which airline is responsible for the safe operation of the flight, whenever aircraft leased with crew are involved.
We have increased the number of inspections of aircraft carried out by the CAA. In 1995, the authority carried out four inspections at the Department's request; so far this year, it has already carried out twice that number—eight—the last two just last week. The authority visited Bulgaria in relation to Balkan Bulgarian Airlines. We are satisfied with that country's compliance with ICAO standards and with safety oversight procedures there. Inspections can lead to aircraft being detained and permits being withheld, and although none of those we have requested this year has done so, the increased number of checks sends a clear message to all airlines flying to the United Kingdom.
I have explained that such inspections and visits can be undertaken only where there is reason to doubt that safety standards are being met. Doubts may arise from passenger complaints, for example, assessments by other countries, or the United States Federal Aviation Authority's safety assessment programme. We cannot check a whole class of flights, such as holiday charters; nor can we simply ban all aircraft from a country on the basis of unchecked reports or assessments.
I should add that the CAA does not have to wait for the Department to request an inspection if it has received information directly that leads the authority to suspect that an aircraft may be unsafe to fly—whether it is a United Kingdom aircraft or a foreign aircraft. In such cases, it can and does inspect the aircraft as quickly as possible, and grounds it if it is found to be dangerous.
Finally, I should say a word about my noble Friend's announcement about fifth freedom. We recognise concerns about safety of aircraft that have been based here, away from safety oversight in their state of registry.
As a result of a review of policy on fifth freedom charter flights from the United Kingdom, we announced on 19 June that, from 1 August this year, the relevant number of fifth freedom passenger charter flights that any one carrier can operate in any one season will be limited to 10 return flights. One effect of that new rule will be to make it less attractive for non-EU airlines—
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)Order. Time is up.