---

Civil Aviation Bill

I said in opening that this was a probing amendment. I appreciate that when someone says ““a probing amendment”” it is not always terribly obvious what one will try to get at. But, with respect to the noble Baroness, we have not quite got there and maybe before the next stage we could have some information about my central point—that is, that we are losing the expertise people who are already trained as inspectors to inspect for airworthiness. It is being lost because in the transfer of authority to the EASA from the CAA and the French authorities, people are simply packing their bags and saying ““I’m not going to Cologne””. I am not sure how long it takes to train somebody to be competent in checking an aeroplane for airworthiness, but I do not imagine that it happens overnight. So the whole thrust of the amendment is to find out what is being done about this to ensure, if possible, that there will be enough people. I hear the noble Baroness say that we are in touch with the appropriate organisation, but this is an awful waste of skilled manpower, if, as I suggest, this is happening. For today I will withdraw the amendment, but I would be grateful if there is an answer to this point that the noble Baroness could let us have before the next stage, in which case we can decide whether to pursue it further.