---

Air Travel and Health (Science and Technology Committee Report)

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and his committee. This is a useful and timely report, and I found it very informative reading over the weekend. His introduction was as witty and clear as any that I have heard. The 2000 Select Committee report to your Lordships’ House had a significant effect. Much has happened since and most of it is good. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, asked about the competence of EASA. When does the Minister think that it will be competent? I hope that he can give an update on the progress, and I would be surprised if he were not well prepared on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, made an interesting point about the control of infectious diseases, as did the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I look forward to the Minister’s response about contingency plans for pandemics. Your Lordships are very good at differentiating between hope and a proper plan. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made important points about hand hygiene, food and bodily functions. He is right. My humble military experience in the Middle East, demonstrated how important that is. Where we had good hand-washing hygiene, we had low rates of infection, but of course the converse was true. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, talked about what I would call ““fit-to-fly”” issues. I share the committee’s concern about the availability of fit-to-fly information. Information is available on the internet, but there are two problems. First, some people hate the internet and others have no access to it, particularly the old, who are flying in increasing numbers. Secondly, there is a problem with accuracy and reliability. I read in the report that even the BBC travel health section gave completely wrong advice, which the report charitably described as nonsense. I was surprised what did and did not contraindicate flying. For example, I was surprised that a 10 day-old baby could fly. It is clear that some work needs to be done on disseminating medical advice and, as ever, that is a cross-departmental issue. The Minister needs to push that. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, talked about the Aviation Health Unit, the AHU. The committee is right to suggest that the AHU handles passenger complaints, and I am concerned that the airlines’ complaint machinery will fall into the trap of minimising and mitigating complaints. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, gave an example of how that might occur. No matter how passenger-focused the airline is, if the airline receives one or two complaints of a similar but obscure nature, the temptation must be to bat it off. But if the AHU received eight complaints of a similar nature but about the same aircraft, this would be significant and it would surely take action. The committee expressed concern regarding insufficient research, and many noble Lords talked about this. The government response to the report lists three projects, but their relevance was a little tenuous and fortuitous. Is the Minister convinced that sufficient research is being undertaken? What research is being conducted overseas? Have we got visibility of that? I know that we would not start a research project without checking whether the research had already been undertaken overseas, but are we examining what is being done overseas? Many noble Lords talked about what I would call the 30-minute rule. I am not yet convinced that the committee has got the correct answer. The committee slightly gave the game away when it said in the report: "““The issue of spread of disease by contact with infectious passengers is high in the public’s mind””." That statement is absolutely right, but it does not mean that regulation is the right answer. Indeed, the Government do not accept the recommendation in their response. On the whole, I do not like giving power without discretion. The proposed 30-minute rule is predicated on the increased risk after a period of 30 minutes without air conditioning. However, there may be risks associated with disembarking the passengers. They could include logistical problems at the airport or a known risk of crime or terrorism at the airport, or there could be a greater risk of infection from the airport rather than staying in the aircraft. Finally, not being ready to taxi to take-off could result in a lost slot opportunity, and that would have knock-on effects and could mean that the passengers do not get to fly that day at all. It is a matter of judgment for the aircraft captain, who needs to balance the risks. It is absolutely vital that all members of the crew of the aircraft, from the captain downwards, recognise the risk of being on the ground in excess of 30 minutes without the air conditioning working. The committee suggests an alternative of making a delay of more than 30 minutes reportable, "““in order to put pressure on the airlines””," to which I would add, ““and the captain””. I suggest that we need to give further thought to this matter and not rush into it. I enjoyed dipping into this subject by reading the report and listening to noble Lords’ comments. Following on from the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on the attractiveness of the Science and Technology Committee, perhaps when I get out of my short trousers I might be honoured with a place on the committee. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s comments.