---

Air Travel and Health (Science and Technology Committee Report)

rose to move that this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Air Travel and Health: An Update (First Report, HL Paper 7). The noble Lord said: In my bleaker moments, which often occur at 35,000 feet, I think that we need a contemporary Swift to hold up to us a picture of what we do, what we claim to find interesting and enjoyable and how we spend perhaps too much of our time. One example of that is climbing into a metal tube and flying at 500 miles an hour 35,000 feet above the earth. Dispassionately considered, it is a strange way to pass the time. Some do it out of sheer necessity because their work requires it; some do it as they hope it is the gateway to the heaven of a delightful holiday; some undoubtedly do it just to escape the hell of airports; but there are those who do it, depending on where they sit in the aeroplane, as some sort of status symbol or declaration of wealth, which often go together. None the less, for a significant number of people, it has turned out to be a source of trouble that may induce ill-health, and many people believe that that could happen. In 2000, the Science and Technology Select Committee of the House published a report that brought together for the first time the wide spectrum of health issues associated with air travel. I am happy to say that the report stimulated research into aircrew and passenger health, not only in the United Kingdom, but well beyond it, so our understanding of major health issues connected with air travel is much improved since then. However, there are still some crucial gaps in our knowledge, to which noble Lords more learned than I am in these matters will, no doubt, point fingers at in due course. The Government changed the law in 2006 to give the Secretary of State, "““the general duty of organising, carrying out and encouraging measures for safeguarding the health of persons on board aircraft””." The Civil Aviation Act 2006 gave the CAA responsibility for the health of all persons aboard aircraft. Much has changed for the better since our original report in 2000, but to members of the committee there were many good reasons for returning to the issues because there are still unresolved matters and uncertainties, sometimes simply of belief in the public mind, that require further inquiry and research. I thank the Government for their response to our report. It is like the proverbial curate’s egg. Noble Lords will not be surprised that the committee thinks the good bits are where the Government accept its recommendations and the bad bits are otherwise. However, there are good bits as well as bits on which several members of the committee might wish to comment. In the course of preparing our report, we received a great deal of written evidence and oral evidence to back it up from distinguished scientists. As a result of that report, we can applaud the Government for having taken the steps necessary to make aviation health a priority. Granted the almost inevitable increase that seems to go on, notwithstanding other matters that bear on this, it is a matter that should have high priority. The aviation health group that was set up has been well received by the industry, the unions, the regulatory authorities and passenger representatives. That is to be commended because we need to have confidence in such a group. The Aviation Health Unit was set up in 2003 within the CAA to act as a focal point for aviation health in the United Kingdom. We think that having such a focal point is a big step forward. However, we believe that there is a risk that this good initiative and other positive initiatives from the Government and elsewhere in the UK may come under threat with the impending transfer of responsibilities from the CAA to the European Aviation Safety Agency. I have to say that I scrutinised the Government’s responses on this matter very carefully, and the wording was good: "““The Government supports the development of a comprehensive European regulatory system””—" of course; aviation health and regulation is more than a national matter. They welcome that, "““as part of its commitment to establish and maintain a high, uniform level of aviation safety across Europe””." The regulation to extend EASA’s competence to air operations is expected to be adopted in the next few weeks. I wonder how far that has gone and whether the competence of EASA to take on these positive responses from the Government has yet been established. Perhaps the Minister can give us further reassurance and an update on this matter. We are concerned that the CAA has failed to follow up the recommendations of its own research and increase the regulatory minimum seat pitch to above 28 inches. I note what the government response has to say on that. For example, and I do not think that this is addressed in the government response, in the event of an emergency the current minimum of 26 inches would not allow many passengers to adopt the recommended brace position. That seems to me to be a minimum condition of the health and safety of those on board. Most airlines currently operate with a 28-inch seat pitch, but the committee believes that should be guaranteed rather than a matter for good practice. The fact that many airlines already provide that suggests that a regulatory requirement would not place tremendously onerous demands on the industry. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government have in hand further discussion of these matters. Our 2000 report raised the specific issue of the introduction of premium economy services, which allow passengers more leg room. It seemed to us that it dealt with some of the issues very well indeed, particularly on long haul flights, but we were disappointed at the tax regime that was introduced at that time, whereby premium economy was taxed at the same level as first-class seating. We know that things have moved on, and I believe that the Government are consulting on the possibility of replacing seating tax with a whole plane tax, but we would be interested to know how those discussions are going and how the consultation is progressing, so that we can take a view on whether we need further response to this matter. In the best of all possible worlds, on a day when taxes are apparently being cut, this might have been an opportunity, had the old regime remained in place—but it appears that we have moved on. A matter that always concerns the Science and Technology Select Committee is research. We believe that informed opinion is the most effective route towards effective policy. A great deal of activity has been stimulated by our original report. For example, the WRIGHT project, carried out under the auspices of the WHO, published its report as we were initially taking evidence. The project set out to find whether the risk of venous thromboembolism was increased by air travel, to determine the magnitude of the risk and to consider other factors. The study came up with some very interesting findings. The WRIGHT project plans to continue and would wish to investigate specific flight-related factors and introduce or recommend effective preventive measures. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that. Much to their credit, the Government financially supported phase 1 of the project, but they did not think it appropriate that there should be direct government funding for phase 2. That is fine, provided international authorities take on the responsibility, because as the Government accepted in funding phase 1, these are important matters on which detailed knowledge is essential. I would have thought that the business of funding phase 2 is partly a matter of protecting one’s investment in phase 1. There has been a lot of discussion about the role of aspirin and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. I emphasise that opinions on this are divided, which is all the more reason to continue with research to produce clear outcomes on whether the use of aspirin increases or minimises the risk of DVT across the population, or has some other unacceptable consequence. We welcome the Government’s response. However, has the matter been raised at the AHWG, as the Government implied might be the case? It would be interesting to know whether that was the case. My noble friend Lord Patel will speak in greater detail about the risk of inflation—or, rather, infection, although the two may go hand in hand. However, one of the chief responses was that wipes are provided on aircraft, and that the right way to proceed is to have a good hand wipe with something impregnated with alcohol. Other noble Lords may have better experience of wipes than I do. Some of the ones that have come my way were more like dry sandpaper than what I call a wipe. This is a minimalist response to a significant danger of infection, not least because, especially on long-haul flights, the preparation and consumption of food, and everything that goes with that in terms of bodily functions, is a very significant element in the environment in the aircraft. I draw attention to our comments on the evidence we received from pilots and unions highlighting fatigue as a new health concern. We remain concerned that tight rostering systems may well provide the number of flying hours required by the rules, but that if they continue for several days the risk of cumulative fatigue rises. We welcome the Government’s acceptance that this is a serious matter and their willingness to commission, or even perhaps participate in, research in this area. We would appreciate being given further information on that. We are pleased that work is being commissioned through Cranfield. We received a very helpful letter from the Minister in June 2008, informing us that this had moved a step forward. We would like to know what stage the commissioning of the research has reached, and when there might be outcomes. The Government responded positively to our recommendations as regards the public’s and general practitioners’ understanding of the dangers of air travel. Although there may be a good supply of information on the world wide web, not all air travellers use that with the efficiency prevalent among Members of the Committee. Therefore, they need other sources of information and general practitioners are the obvious starting point. The Government rightly commend the involvement of the royal colleges and have consulted the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on this and related matters. We would be interested to know the outcome of that consultation. As I say, a range of matters still concern us, and I have no doubt that my colleagues will discuss them in detail. I beg to move. Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Air Travel and Health: An Update (First Report, HL Paper 7).—(Lord Sutherland of Houndwood.)