Gordon Marsden MP: the Government’s inaction post-MH17

Shadow transport minister Gordon Marsden calls for the Government to use reserve powers and stop flights over conflict areas. This Monday the world marks a melancholy anniversary - 100 days since MH17 was shot down. 298 people perished, 10 of whom were British. When I wrote to the Aviation Minister Robert Goodwill in August I raised two concerns that followed on from that terrible event. Firstly, airlines and staff need authoritative information based on authoritative intelligence sources to overcome the variability of different airlines on risk assessment on flying over specific conflict zones. Secondly, the public must be reassured that Government has strong oversight on this and it’s not left to airlines making different decisions about flying over the same conflict zone - as had happened previously over Ukraine. The situation in Iraq and Syria since the MH17 disaster, with intensified potential for Islamic State access sophisticated weaponry, has increased the urgency for reassuring UK passengers’ confidence over their safety. Unfortunately when I asked the Transport Minister at Question Time in the Commons on Thursday what changes in procedures the Government had made since August, the answer seemed to be none. Though he conceded the Transport Secretary had a reserve power to direct airlines not to fly over particular locations, it’s not being used. ‘Ultimately it is up to the airline and the captain to take the decision,’ he told MPs. That may be a truism but it does not absolve Transport Ministers from their responsibilities. The terms of reference of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) taskforce launched with commendable speed in mid-August (and in which UK personnel are participating) clearly assumes that sovereign states should be the default position and base for assessing risks to their civil aviation, except where - as in Ukraine and Iraq - they have not had the capacity to do so. Other countries have been more hands-on, and more quickly. For example the US Federal Aviation Agency notice to US based airlines mid-August about not flying over the expanding Iraq conflict zone was done on the back of security advice. Earlier they had introduced a precautionary halt on flights to Tel Aviv, which ended when a review of the airport’s security measures had taken place. This Government needs now urgently to consider acting likewise and not just leaving it up to market forces. That has the potential, as already shown, for airlines to make conflicting decisions on the same intelligence, a recipe for concern and confusion for passengers and airline staff. There needs to be a much clearer framework in which people can have confidence, with a strong level of expertise input from the aviation industry both on disseminating advice and how it is framed. This could involve a security-cleared pilot as BALPA has suggested. It would also show leadership if the Government actively promoted a high-level consultation that included pilots, crew and passenger advocates - as well perhaps as giving a role to Parliament’s own Intelligence and Security Committee. In the mid to long-term, we obviously need international agreement. That’s why Labour supports the ICAO discussions which aim at setting such a framework for cooperation. In the light of this there might be a strong case for a parallel process in the UK as suggested here. But in the short-term we must be far more proactive now. We need to ensure Government has a clear and robust framework for action so it does not have to scramble to catch up when new issues or conflicts arise, as they did with the rapid incursions of Islamic State in both Iraq and Syria.The Chief Executive of Lufthansa, quoted in Andrew Parker’s wide-ranging and thoughtful piece about air safety in the FT, says the view is widely shared in the industry that airlines should have wider access to direct information from Governments and their intelligence agencies.In the meantime, however, the UK Government seems to be maintaining its view that it has no role in coordinating that process or in reassuring the travelling public that advice given is authoritative and consistent across all UK airlines. The ICAO is due to report its initial recommendations at the end of this month, but has also said work on complex issues will take longer. The ICAO’s need for consensus involving the aviation industry and UN bodies as well as its member states could also delay any implementation of proposals significantly into the future.Meanwhile the pilots and airlines leaving UK airspace who the Minister says have the last say are looking at a confusion of messages, intelligence and recommendations. No one is asking or wanting Ministers or their officials to micro-manage this process. But surely the travelling public, pilots and cabin crew deserve some activity from them on coordinating advice and intelligence to take things forward here and now.