---

Air Travel and Health (Science and Technology Committee Report)

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Broers and Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, for their exemplary chairmanship of our committee. I enjoyed for the second time being a member of the committee, which has produced this report on air travel and health. Everyone knows that the airline industry has a great record in making flying safer and that, over the years, the industry has put into place a methodology for identifying and learning from air-safety incidents that has made commercial flying safer than any other mode of transport. However, the same cannot be said about the industry and regulators addressing the air cabin environment and passenger comfort for the vast majority of passengers. Doing so could make the flying experience safer and more comfortable, particularly when it comes to health. Much work has been done, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, mentioned, but more needs to be done, particularly to identify areas in which there could be a reduction in the transmission of infection and the possibility of developing medical complications, particularly on long-haul flights. The industry does not have the same focus on the health of their customers as they do on the safety of their equipment. Our report made three recommendations that are all based on the evidence that was presented to us and which the Government’s response did not fully address. The general perception among the public that infectious disease can be transmitted via the air cabin environment has not gone away, despite the evidence against this view. Having said that, the role of air travel as a vector in the spread of disease is clear, as more than 2 billion people travel by air and more and more new pathogens are discovered. There are currently more than 50 new pathogens, along with the better known ones such as influenza, tuberculosis and SARS. SARS infected 8,000 people in 29 countries in a very short time and created a major global health emergency. Pandemic influenza poses an even greater threat than SARS. Apart from the number of people who are travelling, we now have bigger aircraft, which carry up to 800 passengers and fly longer distances, frequently for 12 to 18 hours. The potential for the spread of infection must be greater, so what measures can be taken to slow down the spread of infection or to stop it in the event of a global pandemic, and why? Slowing the spread of the influenza virus during a pandemic will reduce the chance of a number of people dying. Importantly, it might also allow anti-virals to be delivered and vaccines to be developed. We found very little evidence of the airline industry, regulators or the Government having any contingency plans to control the spread of disease in such an event. We were told that there is planning, but no details were given, which led us to conclude that there may have been talks but no plans. There can be several ways in which to try to limit or to slow down the spread of infection during a pandemic. Will the Minister put that right today and tell us who is co-ordinating plans to control influenza pandemics? Aeroplanes with a large number of passengers flying long distances to and from countries where infective organisms are transmitted by water, food or skin contact risk spreading diseases. There is clear evidence that disinfecting possibly contaminated surfaces using appropriate hand hygiene and alcohol wipes, which the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, mentioned, can reduce the risk of transmitting such infections. While, following our report, the airlines have begun to give good advice on issues such as the need to take exercise and maintain movement, to control hydration and so on, I wonder why they have not adopted the guidance related to reducing the risk of transmitting infection when many of the actions that can be taken incur no cost. Perhaps the Minister can comment on why is there such a reluctance to implement these recommendations. The WHO report also states that the transmission of infection becomes widespread when the air cabin ventilation supply is turned off for longer than 30 minutes, yet no guidance is given by the regulator to airlines to limit the time spent without ventilation to less than 30 minutes when passengers are on board. Again, the Government response did not support any insistence on this. I hope that the Minister will comment on these issues and agree that the recommendations made in our report are sensible and will help to reduce the risk of the transmission of infection. The first Science and Technology Committee report on this issue highlighted the wide gap in research into cabin environment and health. However, as has been referred to, while the Government and other agencies have supported much of the research undertaken since then, as yet no conclusions have been reached. Moreover, as my noble friend Lord Sutherland mentioned, no research is planned for part 2 of the WRIGHT project, the WHO Research into the Global Hazards of Travel, which is not funded. Can the Minister confirm whether that funding will be provided or are the Government discussing it? Many of the results of EU research schemes are not published, and surely that is not satisfactory. The Government need to do more to support and encourage appropriate research and ensure that the results are published. The airline industry and the regulatory authorities need to demonstrate a more responsible attitude towards making sure that the risks to customers’ health, be it from the transmission of disease onboard, developing medical conditions such as DVT or existing medical conditions becoming worse during long-haul flights, are reduced. They must be seen to be continuously addressing these issues and should not be relying on reports like ours to push them into taking action; they need to be more proactive. A safe aircraft is one that is not only well maintained and safe to travel in, but also provides a healthier and more comfortable environment, particularly on long-distance flights.