Rail 2020

Debate between Iain Stewart and Simon Burns

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Burns]

I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is important that we consider opening new railway lines or reopening lines that have been removed but whose beds remain in place where there is demand and need for them and if the business case backs it up. Tunnels are an important and topical issue that has come across my desk and we are looking at it very carefully.

[Iain Stewart]

May I underline the importance of keeping old route lines open or free for potential reopening? Work on the western section of the east-west rail project has been very easy because the line is still there, but there are difficulties on the Bedford to Cambridge and East Anglia section because part of that track has been built on.

[Mr Burns]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. We have to learn from some of the mistakes of the past and what happened to the railways post-Beeching. I accept what my hon. Friend says.

We are well on the way to delivering a new high-speed railway for Britain, bringing extra capacity, faster journeys and better services and changing our economic geography. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Durham is not as enthusiastic about this exciting way of improving connectivity, journey times and increasing capacity. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering, but I am surprised—

Flight Time Limitations

Debate between Iain Stewart and Simon Burns

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Mr Burns]

May I put that in context? Those are not hard and fast statistics but a poll, which is slightly different.

[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.