Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan.
First, I will declare an interest, having been a Unite rep in a previous existence; I remain a member of the union. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for securing this debate, and for his very measured opening speech.
My background is in science; I used to work as a biochemist for the NHS. So I am very wary about jumping to any conclusions; we need to weigh up the evidence. However, I support the request for an independent inquiry into this issue. The evidence is quite compelling and we need to progress. The employer’s duty of care has been talked about, and it is absolutely key to this issue that we assess the evidence that is available, examine the incidents that have occurred and try to establish whether there is a causative effect. We really need to take some action, and I hope that that is what we decide to do at the end of this debate.
Both my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) have already talked about cabin air and where it comes from. It is quite significant that the new Boeing 787 uses a different method of supplying cabin air. The air is supplied by electronically driven compressors that take air directly from the atmosphere so there is no contact with the engines; there is no possibility of a seal failing and contaminants from the engine oil getting into the cabin air. One of my constituents, who is an air steward, has suggested to me that this new plane has been developed because it has been recognised that there are issues with the old system of bleed air. Again, however, that is speculation.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I asked precisely the same question of my officials: was it done for that reason? They said, no, it was done for other reasons, not because of the air quality issue. Obviously, however, the effect is that air does not have to pass through the engine. The aircraft was designed for efficiency and that change was one way of making the aircraft more efficient; it was not made in reaction to this bleed air quality issue.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Minister for that intervention; that is very useful information. It reinforces the point about speculation and causative effects. Obviously, cabin crew say that the air issue was the reason why the 787 was developed with that system. If there is a public inquiry on this matter, I hope that information about that system will form part of the evidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that some statistics showed that fume events occurred in one flight in 2,000. One of the statistics that I pulled out is from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. COT reported in 2007 that fume events occur on one flight in 100, so again there is some dispute over the incidence of these events. There is also anecdotal evidence that fume events occur even more often than that, but they are not being reported. The really surprising thing about all of this is that there are no chemical sensors in the aircraft. The noses of the cabin crew are the only detectors.
My constituent asked me not to give her name, but she was quite happy to talk to me about her experience as a cabin crew member. She described these fume events to me. She said that she has been in cabins when fumes have entered. She has flown for four different airlines and fume events have happened in planes from all four of them. She said to me, “Fumes come in. You smell the oil. It’s not being acknowledged by managers and higher officials in the airline industry when these incidents are reported.” When I spoke to her, she compared the effect of fume events with Gulf war syndrome. With Gulf war syndrome, we had soldiers coming back to the UK with massive neurological problems and it took a very long time for any investigation to be made and for it to occur to somebody that these problems were happening too often to be a coincidence. It is interesting that she made that comparison.
My constituent said to me that all cabin crew want is for this problem to be recognised and acknowledged. Until we have a full investigation, cabin crew will not feel that their employers are doing everything they can to safeguard them while they are at work.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Mr Hanson, I welcome you to the Chair. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on securing the debate, as well as to my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who supported him in his application to the Backbench Business Committee. I thank that Committee for granting this very important debate.
I also thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have contributed today. I counted 12, taking into account interventions and speeches, which shows the importance that Members attach to this issue. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), as well as from my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who both brought scientific expertise to the debate, which was very welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central spoke with a lot of personal knowledge of this issue from her involvement in the aviation industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) spoke with a great deal of passion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, he emphasised the importance of trade unions being able to bring these kinds of issues to the House’s attention and talked about that being an important part of democracy.
The aviation industry and the aviation sector is a key pillar of our economy, but it is more than that, even though that is important enough in its own right; travel by air has made our world a smaller place. It fosters direct face-to-face contact and understanding between peoples across the globe in a way that no other mode of travel ever has. That is why it is right that we pay tribute today to those who work in the civil aviation sector, on the ground as well as in the air.
However, this debate really does raise genuine welfare concerns, particularly for cabin crew and pilots: some of the people on whom we rely to get comfortably and safely to our destinations. Their work, as many hon. Members have said, is far from easy. Fatigue is regularly among the top concerns of staff in the air, and we know that that is an underlying but ever-growing problem. We also appreciate the impact that their work can have on their family life.
Despite all those pressures, however, what is clear is that air crew do the job because they love it, and two such people were Richard Westgate and Matt Bass. I want to join the tributes to their families and to Unite. I declare myself a proud member of Unite and draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is right to recognise that parts of the media have tried to move the issue up the public agenda. It has received attention from, for example, BBC’s “Victoria Derbyshire” programme and ITN’s “Tonight” programme.
All those people and institutions are right in saying that key unanswered questions remain: on research into air fume events, monitoring and detection systems, and awareness, education and diagnosis of symptoms. The Government’s responsibility is to do all they can to ensure the safety of passengers and crew alike. The existence of regulators is important, but does not take away that overall responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, we know from the asbestos issue that what authorities often believe for a long time to be the case does not always turn out to be correct.
We know that many modern aircraft use bleed-air systems—that has been referred to many times in this debate—to supply air to the cabin, but we also know that faults with engine seals and seepage can lead to contaminated fumes containing toxins. What is not crystal clear is the implication of short and long-term exposure to contaminated air and its links to aerotoxic syndrome which, given the range of systems, is clearly difficult to diagnose. However, there are some things we already know. The coroner’s report on the death of Richard Westgate recognised:
“symptoms consistent with chronic exposure to organophosphates.”
We know that Matt Bass shared similar symptoms. The inquest into his death is ongoing. We also know that Unite is pursuing some 61 individual cases. The question is real: is aerotoxic syndrome an occupational illness?
A number of Members today have drawn attention to reports and position papers produced by the Committee on Toxicity and how its findings have been interpreted. There is a clear distinction between saying there is no evidence of aerotoxic syndrome, as some suggest, and saying that there is not enough evidence to prove that link. As Professor Alan Boobis, the Committee’s chair, said in his interview on ITN’s “Tonight” programme last year:
“We made proposals for research that could be pursued…as far as I know, no one came back.”
The Association of Flight Attendants also called for further research in its critique of the committee’s 2007 report, in which it stated that
“there is a need for a large scale sampling study.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde rightly called for an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of these things, and that call has been echoed by others. The Minister will no doubt say that the UK is supporting an international approach for research through the European Aviation Safety Agency. That is important, and I understand that the agency will publish a preliminary report in the autumn. It is also important to know exactly what that is about and who is doing it. I understand that the agency has contracted out the work; in that context, will the Minister confirm the independence of the bodies commissioned to do that study and who was consulted on the choice of contractor? If he does not have the information now, I understand, and perhaps he will write to me.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I follows on from four pieces of research in the UK, most notably that by Cranfield University, so it is not as if we have not already carried out a lot of work in the UK.
Richard Burden
I am grateful to the Minister for that information, but I want to press him on EASA’s study and its remit. His letter in November 2015 to the Chair of the Transport Committee suggests that EASA is currently looking at what equipment should be put in place to undertake cockpit and cabin air measurements in future and will report in the autumn. That is important, and I will come back to it in a moment. I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm whether the current EASA project has any remit to survey existing evidence from inquiries and studies—he mentioned some of them—whether from the UK, from other parts of Europe, international or in, for example, Australia.
Those inquiries and studies of air cabin safety have happened already. If the EASA does not have a remit to look at those other studies and can look only at monitoring for the future, should the Minister not ensure that someone is doing that work already? If it is happening, that is great, but it would be useful to know who is doing it. If it is not happening, why not? A number of hon. Members have mentioned the importance of the precautionary principle, which we need to apply in this case. The state has a duty of care.
On research, I have been told that no toxicity studies have reflected the real-life atmospheric pressure and temperature levels of planes at altitude. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central made this point. To me, that says that we simply do not know the synergistic effects and impact of prolonged exposure. Understanding that is critical if we are to establish whether this is an occupational disease. Will the Minister tell me whether I am right and, if I am, who will do that study and who will put in place those tests on aircraft in flight?
Whatever else is or is not being done, it seems from what the Minister said in his letter to the Chair of the Transport Committee in November 2015 that EASA is looking into the use of monitoring equipment, and that is important. It is vital to improve the data available for research. There are already legal requirements for cabin air to adhere to set levels of, for example, carbon dioxide and other toxins, but without appropriate detection equipment in place how do we know whether those standards are being met? Will the Minister say whether systems are available that could be put on aircraft? If there are, why are they not on aircraft and what can we do to ensure that that happens from now on?
No one denies that the fume events occur, but we do not know the true extent to which contaminated air incidents happen, as we have heard time and again today. Without monitoring, it is up to aircraft crew to report incidents. As was also said today, it is down to the noses of air crew. That makes it equally important that they receive adequate awareness training to detect leaks, whether by smell or other means. It is not unreasonable to suggest, as various hon. Members have, that pilots and cabin crew may be reluctant to report, particularly in the highly competitive environments in which airlines now operate, what they suspect could be minor instances, especially given the possible implications for airlines and perhaps for their own professional interests.
The 2008 ASA critique of the Committee on Toxicity also noted that the rate and reliability of reports coming in were flawed. So what steps are the Government taking with the regulators to ensure that awareness training is in place and that reporting is expected and enforced?
Finally, on the types of aircraft, what guidance does the Minister have on whether certain aircraft are particularly susceptible to fume events? In line with the precautionary principle that Members from all parties have said we need to adopt, where there is now bleed-free architecture available, what steps can we take to ensure that all future aircraft built adopt that technology? I am glad that the Minister asked his civil servants whether there was any link with cabin air in the design of the 787 Dreamliner. They told him that the design was about efficiency, not cabin air. I am sure it was partly about efficiency, but will the Minister go back to them and ask them to check whether representations were made and whether the Federal Aviation Administration talked about air quality in cabins being a factor in the design of bleed-free engines?
I hope the Minister will address the questions that all hon. Members have raised today. We owe it to Richard Westgate and Matt Bass, and to their families. We owe it to cabin crews and pilots themselves. Because all of us are in this category as well, we owe it to the travelling public, the passengers. We need to get to the bottom of this without further delay.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on securing this debate about cabin air safety and aerotoxic syndrome. I should also declare an interest as a member of a union that has members who have been involved with OP toxicity issues. As a member of the National Farmers Union, I have dipped many thousands of sheep and used chemicals at many thousands of times the concentration of the ones we are talking about in this debate. Also, I have two friends who have suffered the sorts of symptoms that we have heard described today: chronic fatigue and sickness and so on.
Grahame M. Morris
The Minister is making a good point. In fact, the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Does he accept that the problem is the regular, continuous exposure to various levels, whereas sheep dipping, even though it was done without proper protection initially—he can correct me if I am wrong—would presumably be for a limited period? It would not be every day in someone’s working life on the farm.
Mr Goodwill
I will go on to describe the levels that those in aircraft cabins are likely to be exposed to under normal operations when a fume event has not taken place. However, as I was saying, neither of my two friends who are suffering from career-finishing symptoms—they are not able to work—had been involved in either the aviation industry or in agriculture. I suspect that if they had been involved in agriculture, I would have been asking questions about whether their exposure to sheep dip or to other agrochemicals may have been to blame. Similarly, if they had been in the aviation industry, I would perhaps be asking the same questions.
The Government take the health and air safety of passengers and crew extremely seriously. The United Kingdom is recognised throughout the global aviation community for its high standard and excellent record of safety in commercial aviation. I must make it clear that the Government must always act on evidence and we have over the years worked hard to collect evidence, as did the previous Government when the problem first came to public awareness. There has been much public debate about the issue as so many people are aware of the problem.
There are currently two inquests into deaths where the relatives of the deceased are trying to establish whether contamination by cabin air could have been the cause of death. Both inquests are still open, and in both cases the CAA rather than my Department has been named as an interested party. Both of the deceased were employed by the same airline, and so far the evidence that has been gathered does not support the view that the deaths were connected to contamination of cabin air.
In the case of Richard Westgate, the Dorset coroner’s January pre-inquest review has been adjourned to 30 March 2016 to allow time for medical experts’ reports to be submitted, but he did release a prevention of future deaths report in 2014, which some have taken as a signal that the death might be attributed to contamination of cabin air. However, there was no evidence to suggest that this was the case, and we await the full inquest verdict with a great deal of interest.
In the case of Matt Bass, who has been mentioned during this debate and whose case is before the Berkshire coroner, the January pre-inquest review has been adjourned until 15 June 2016 to allow time to locate medical samples and to instruct the experts. I offer my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the deceased, but, as the two inquests have not been concluded, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment in further detail.
Dawn Butler
The Bournemouth coroner, in respect of Mr Westgate, issued a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths under the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 in relation to both British Airways and the CAA on 16 February 2015. In it he states:
“In my opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that your organisation has the power to take such action.”
Is that part of your consideration?
Mr Goodwill
As I said, the inquest has not been finalised and no verdict has been reached. In many ways, the precautionary principle may have prompted the coroner to issue that advice at that time, but the case is still before the courts. Similarly, if the case was before a criminal court, one would not want to comment before the verdict. It would be inappropriate for the Government to do so and my legal advice is that we should not comment before the verdict. In at least one of the cases we will not have long to wait for the verdict, and we will look very carefully at the scientific evidence brought before the inquest and how that is interpreted.
Kirsten Oswald
I am interested to hear the Minister say that the Government want to look carefully at the evidence; I appreciate the sentiment behind that. Would it be useful to also look very carefully at the responses to the report referred to by British Airways and the Civil Aviation Authority, because this information will help us to decide how best to move forward?
Mr Goodwill
Certainly the CAA is involved in this. I meet regularly with the unions involved, particularly BALPA, so it is not something that we are trying to shuffle away, but we need to wait for the result of the inquest before we report on these particular cases. I will go on to present various pieces of evidence and show where we are on this important matter. I will talk about what work has already been done and what work we believe needs to be done.
The safety of cabin air is an issue that has been a matter of public debate over several years—in fact, over a decade now. This continues to be the case, and I, together with my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, have received a considerable amount of correspondence and responded to several parliamentary questions on cabin air quality. As background, some crew and passengers have expressed concerns that they have suffered long-term health impairment, which they contend is due to exposure to organophosphates present in small amounts as additives in aviation engine oils and hydraulic fluids.
As ever, we have to be careful to have regard to whether there is evidence to support the link between the illnesses and cabin air. That is why the concerns have been investigated at length over a number of years. In 2006 the previous Government arranged for the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—an independent advisory committee of toxicology experts—to review evidence from the British Airline Pilots Association. At the time, the Committee on Toxicity considered that it was not possible to conclude whether cabin air exposures in general, or following incidents such as fume events, cause ill health in commercial aircraft crews. It recommended further work to ascertain whether substances in the cabin environment could potentially be harmful to health.
A second inquiry was held by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, which looked into this issue as part of a wider inquiry in 2007, and published its findings in a report called “Air Travel and Health”. In that report, the findings of the Committee on Toxicity were supported. Following the recommendation in 2007 by the Committee on Toxicity, the Government commissioned a series of scientific studies as part of a research programme on cabin air. The principal research study, which was carried out by Cranfield University, was published in 2011. It found that, with respect to the conditions of flight experienced during the cabin air sampling, there was no evidence of pollutants occurring at levels exceeding health and safety standards and guidelines. Levels observed in the flights that formed part of the study—I stress that they did not include an instance of an oil seal failing—were comparable to those typically experienced in domestic settings. No higher levels of exposure were found than, for example, we would experience in this Chamber.
In addition to the principal study, three further research studies were commissioned and published by the Government. Those four published studies were formally submitted to the Committee on Toxicity for consideration in 2012. The Committee considered the research reports, as well as other research published in the scientific literature since 2007, and subsequently published a position paper on cabin air in December 2013.
I have recently written to several Members of Parliament regarding the findings of the Committee’s position paper. In that letter, which was also placed in the Libraries of both Houses, I summarised the advice the Committee gave and its conclusions. In short, the paper recognises that contamination of cabin air by components or combustion products of engine oils does occur, and that episodes of acute illness have occurred shortly after such episodes. However, it found that levels of chemicals in bleed air would need to occur in far higher concentrations than those found during the studies to cause serious toxicity, and that the symptoms that have been reported following fume events have been wide-ranging, and less specific than those that typically occur from chemical toxicity.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful to the Minister, who is being characteristically generous in giving way. Is there not a basic flaw in that suggestion, if we do not count incidents? Could it be that in some older aircraft that may not be maintained to such a rigorous standard, air fume events are more frequent? Is that not a possibility, if we do not do a proper investigation, in situ, in real time?
Mr Goodwill
That is a very reasonable point to make. The findings have been made by professional toxicologists, whose job it is to analyse the effects of toxic compounds in a variety of locations, including the workplace. I shall come on to talk about the number of so-called fume events, and I have some evidence from the CAA to put it in context.
Richard Burden
I understand the reports that the Minister refers to. I do not know whether he saw, as I did, the interview that Professor Boobis gave to the “Tonight” programme, when he was at pains to say that the Committee on Toxicity was not saying that cabin air was safe when the incidents occurred. He went on to say that it had made proposals for further research that could be pursued; as far as he knew no one came back to the committee. Has that been followed up?
Mr Goodwill
Research is ongoing, not least through the European Aviation Safety Agency, but the levels of OP concentration in situations where no fume event has occurred—which have been measured widely—have been found to be no greater than they are in this Chamber or any domestic location. They are very small background levels, as one would expect. Particularly given the sensitivity of some of the testing that can now be carried out, it is not difficult to find OPs almost anywhere.
As a toxic mechanism for the reported illnesses was found to be unlikely, a nocebo effect was considered a plausible alternative explanation for the symptoms. A nocebo effect can be defined as a detrimental effect on health produced by psychological or psychosomatic factors—for example where a subject develops symptoms as a reaction to a situation that he or she perceives as dangerous or hazardous. However, neither option could be proved beyond doubt given the available data; but we know that the nocebo effect happens in other circumstances. I hesitate to give this example from my own experience, but when I was a child my mother would serve us a cooked breakfast and after we had finished she would say, “I hope those sausages were all right. They were well past their sell-by date,” and one felt a feeling in one’s stomach. It is not the same thing, but it shows how psychological effects can pass into physical effects. That is one of the theories put forward by the scientists looking at the matter. The nocebo is an established psychological and medical situation.
Rachael Maskell
The Minister is being generous with his time this afternoon. What I want to know is what is behind the research. What about the cumulative impact of constant exposure to instances of gases being released into the cabin?
Mr Goodwill
I am going to come on to the frequency of fume events. I think none of the toxicologists or other scientists involved in the projects consider that there is a risk in the normal background level of chemicals in an aircraft cabin. As I have said, those are similar to the levels found in any other setting in the UK. The fume events are what we need to look at, and I will be discussing a little more evidence that I have been given about the frequency of those events.
As a toxic mechanism could not be categorically ruled out as the cause of the symptoms, the Committee concluded that more research would be beneficial. It stated, however, that it would be necessary to balance the likelihood that the further research will usefully inform further management of the problem against the costs of undertaking the research. There are various aspects of the issue to take into consideration, including the results of the research that has been undertaken and the unpredictability and rarity of the fume events. I said I would have some information on that. The Civil Aviation Authority operates a mandatory occurrence-reporting scheme and, contrary to what we may have heard during the debate, the CAA is determined that every type of occurrence should be reported. Indeed, if airlines do not report instances, questions are asked about whether their culture is a good one.
When I was a member of the Select Committee on Transport we visited the CAA and were given a list of the sorts of reports that came forward, which included things that people might not see as relevant, such as both pilots eating the same sandwich. That would be an issue if there were a food poisoning incident. Even what might seem trivial and unimportant incidents must be reported, and there is a culture of reporting in the airline industry, not least in the case of fume events, which people are well aware of.
Jonathan Reynolds
The Minister is being very generous. How does the CAA envisage the compulsory reporting of incidents being carried out, when there is not the monitoring available to find out whether one has occurred or not?
Mr Goodwill
I am advised that if a fume event occurs it is apparent to everyone on the aircraft. The smell of the oil is absolutely apparent to people. As I mentioned, there is a culture of reporting in the CAA and the aviation industry—which, incidentally, we would like to spread to the health service, where near misses and potential accidents are often not reported. Its reporting culture ensures that the aviation industry is one of the safest in the world.
Rachael Maskell
That is the crux of the debate. The reality is that it may be possible to detect a serious fuel event; but what about a minor one, where there is slight leakage into the cabin?
Mr Goodwill
I will also give way to the hon. Member for Brent Central before I respond.
Dawn Butler
To pick up on that point, there are also some toxins that one cannot smell, so is not the way to gather the empirical evidence, as has been said, just to monitor what is going on in the aircraft at the time? The Minister is absolutely right: the airline industry has a culture of reporting the errors or mistakes that people make, so that it can improve its system. However, that is exactly what is not happening with these incidents, because they are not being monitored.
Mr Goodwill
A lot of air quality monitoring has been carried out on aircraft. The problem is that fume events are relatively rare and therefore there has not been the ability to pick one up during one of those monitoring situations.
Under the CAA’s mandatory reporting scheme, the trigger for a report is an event that is considered by the crew to be a
“safety-related event which endangers or which, if not corrected or addressed, could endanger an aircraft, its occupants or any other person.”
None of the flights where fumes and smells were reported in post-flight questionnaires met those criteria; they are the ones that we actually tested. However, I have some data from the CAA on the number of those reports where smells have been reported in the cabin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that he had been given the figure of about one in 2,000 flights. We heard from the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) that it is about one in 100. The evidence that I have is that in the last decade we have seen annually between 282 and 471 reports of smells or fumes in the cabin. The last year that we have report numbers for is 2014, when there were 426.
However, it must be emphasised that up to now, reports of fumes have included all causes of smoke, odour or fumes, both internal and external, and not just incidents of bleed-air contamination. The CAA estimates that a maximum of 10% of those incidents reported are regarding bleed-air contamination—in other words, less than one a week—and therefore it has not been possible as yet to have testing equipment on an aircraft when one has happened. I hope that that puts into context the frequency with which these situations occur.
Rachael Maskell
I would like to press the Minister a little further on this issue, because it is very important. The fact that detection equipment is not available or not placed on aircraft means that we are moving to subjective measures of whether an incident has occurred. Is it not vital that we first do the correct monitoring in order to understand how big, small or frequent these incidents are, and then go on to take action? I do not think that the reports to which the Minister is referring are satisfying us that that empirical evidence is available.
Mr Goodwill
I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. I am laying out what research has been done and what information we have to date. That is why it is very important that EASA makes further progress. Indeed, we are keen to find out what research is happening around the world. Because of the international nature of the aviation industry, it is the Government’s view that an international approach to any future research investigations would be appropriate.
Chris Stephens
Will the Minister comment on the occupational health and safety aspect and look at this issue again? It seems to me that air cabin crews’ Health and Safety Executive protections apply only when they are on the ground and outside the aircraft. Things such as Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations seem to be falling through the net between the CAA and the HSE.
Mr Goodwill
My advice is that the CAA is the body responsible for the safety of crew and passengers in this case, and the CAA, as I have said, takes this very seriously. We are working with international bodies such as EASA to try to progress some of the research. The opportunity to collect data from a broader sample base than is available in the UK—
Chris Stephens
The Minister has been most generous in accepting interventions. My understanding is that COSHH regulations would apply to much of this, but that the CAA has said that COSHH regulations do not apply to it. Could the hon. Gentleman go away and look at that, in terms of the health and safety protections that should apply to these workers?
Mr Goodwill
I am certainly happy to interrogate the CAA on its interpretation of the rules on COSHH. I am well aware of the operation of the regulations; as a former road tanker driver, I know all about COSHH regulations. But of course aviation is an international business and aircraft are not necessarily within our jurisdiction as they are flying, so it is important that we have international agreements. Indeed, many aircraft that carry British nationals are flagged to other countries around the world, and therefore we need to ensure that their standards are as high as ours and that work can be progressed internationally.
Richard Burden
I will add to the interventions now, so that the Minister can get them out of the way in one go. Could I press him a little more on the business about EASA? If I understood him correctly just now, he was saying that EASA was looking at the research that is available. The letter that he sent to the Transport Committee, as I understood it, suggested that EASA was looking not at that, but at the future of monitoring equipment. That is very important, but my question stands: who is looking at the body of research that is already there, nationally, in Europe and internationally, pulling it all together and seeing whether any action can be taken on the basis of what we already know?
Mr Goodwill
Certainly the UK has looked at the studies that have already taken place. Indeed, many of those were initiated in this country by the previous Labour Government. But we are obviously very keen to look at how we can work to get further information. In terms of the EASA research, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, due to the unpredictability and rarity of fume events and due to the international nature of the aviation industry, it is the Department’s view that an international approach to any future research investigations would be appropriate. The opportunity to collect data from a broader sample base than is available in the UK alone would lead to a higher probability of more meaningful evidence being collated. The Department therefore wrote to EASA with those views in March 2014.
EASA did launch in the spring of 2015 a preliminary in-flight cabin air measurement campaign. That will develop a methodology and put in place adequate equipment to perform cockpit and cabin air measurements. The results of that campaign, which will be used to prepare for an envisaged large-scale project in the future, are expected in autumn 2016. The Department will follow with interest the progress of that work; indeed, I will update the hon. Gentleman when I get further information.
At national level, the aviation health unit within the medical department of the CAA will continue to monitor issues relating to cabin air, as part of its wider role as specialist adviser to the Government on aviation health issues.
As I said, EASA has launched preliminary work, and we hope to carry that further. I point out that the UK is not the only country in the world conducting research in this field. For example, the German authorities, as well as the country’s biggest airline, Lufthansa, have conducted similar research projects to the ones mentioned here, and they have arrived at the same conclusions. That is not to say that the industry is complacent—far from it. New technologies for improving the filtration and monitoring of cabin air are emerging all the time, and as we have discussed, there is a particular aircraft type, the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner, that uses a different source of air, although it must be noted that the equivalent Airbus aircraft, the A350, uses the conventional bleed-air system for cabin air sourcing.
The aviation industry is aware of the concerns that have been raised and is continuously reviewing the current practices, as well as developing options for future improvements. The Government are working together with the industry to support that momentum. The joint Government and industry funded aerospace research and development programme, supported by the Aerospace Technology Institute and Innovate UK, is supporting projects in related areas, including air and oil systems, electronic technologies and system health monitoring, all of which will lead to enhanced cabin air quality as one of the outcomes. The Aerospace Technology Institute is currently working with industry to launch further projects in these areas.
In 2013, industry and Government, working together through the Aerospace Growth Partnership, made a joint funding commitment worth £2.1 billion in total for aerospace research and development over seven years. That was protected, and extended by an additional £900 million over six years to 2025-26, in the spending review in 2015. The industry has committed to matching the investment from the Government in this area. The industry certainly understands the importance of research and development aimed at improving overall safety. However, for the industry to drastically change the way the aircraft are air-conditioned or, indeed, to change the lubricants, there would have to be clear evidence that shows that cabin air quality is harmful to crew and passengers. The current practice of using air from the compression stage of the engine—bleed air—has been shown to be an effective, fuel-efficient and reliable way of providing air to the cabin.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the issue is taken seriously by all parties involved. However, as it is a complex issue with little evidence to show that a change is needed, it will take time to find new and innovative solutions that would be accepted by all. We certainly need to co-ordinate international research and I will raise that with the CAA at our next meeting. I will also discuss the issue with the British Airline Pilots Association, although I have to say that the issue has not necessarily been very high on its agenda at some meetings I have had with it. Maybe debates such as this will further raise awareness among those who work in the industry.
Finally, I urge a note of caution on the precautionary principle. I was a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and, very often, the precautionary principle was used as a way of taking action on something for which there was no supporting evidence. I cite the case of phthalates used as a softening substance in PVC for medical uses and for things such as babies’ bottles. The outcome of making a change based on no evidence other than some very limited migration evidence actually resulted in products that were not as suitable and could have jeopardised people’s treatment. We need to be very careful about using the precautionary principle. We need to look at the actual evidence. I am pleased that research has been carried out, and more research will be carried out.
Once again, I stress how seriously I take the issue and how important it is that we get more evidence. I thank the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Brent Central, and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) for securing the debate and for providing us with the opportunity to discuss this important and, to many, very personal issue.