| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Brett: My Lords, far be it from me to have to point out to a person who takes such interest in the matter that this is not part of the Social Chapter. The working time directive is not part of the Social Chapter. It is in fact a health and safety issue. I always admire
5 May 2009 : Column 440
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, the key words in my noble friend’s original Question, as underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, were “long-term derogation”. Although we welcome the recent news, do not the Government expect the issue of Britain's opt-out to be raised again in Brussels after the European elections, so it is far from finally resolved in our favour?
Lord Brett: My Lords, that becomes a hypothetical question, because it is quite unclear what will happen next. It is not in the gift of Her Majesty's Government or indeed of the European Parliament; the issue is now with the Commission. It is for the Commission to decide how it wishes to proceed, if it wishes to proceed.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, can the Minister tell us for how long the derogation is in being and how soon a decision will be made? I draw his attention to the implications that it would have for all those involved in the farming community, particularly at harvest time, when clearly one cannot work for just 48 hours a week.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that there is no end date to the issue when the opt-out will be decided on, derogation denied or the issue even discussed. As I said to the previous questioner, the issue is now one for the Commission to take forward.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch:My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that the British people would have voted to stay in what they were assured was a common market in 1975 if they had thought that they were going to be subjected to this and much other nonsense from Brussels?
Lord Brett: My Lords, I know that for the noble Lord all roads lead to Rome—or is that away from Rome? This one does not.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, does the Minister believe that working hours for British people should be made by the British Parliament?
Lord Brett: My Lords, I believe that working time for British people is decided by British people, in the normal way, between the employer and themselves. I would advise any group of any large number to have the advantage of a trade union to help them do that.
5 May 2009 : Column 441
Swine Flu: Aircraft
Question
3 pm
Asked By Lord McColl of Dulwich
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that all air in airliners is fresh, in order to reduce the risk of the spread of swine flu.
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, up to half the cabin air is recirculated and mixed before being distributed through the cabin. The air is mixed and passed through high-efficiency particulate air filters, which are 99.97 per cent efficient at removing bacteria, viruses and particulate material. The total volume of cabin air is exchanged every two to three minutes, compared with every five to 10 minutes in most air-conditioned buildings.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Unfortunately, this 99 per cent that he mentions is what the manufacturers say; they say that they construct the filters in such a way that they will filter the viruses. However, they have never tested these filters, which clearly cannot filter viruses out; I personally have inspected them. The problem is that that air is full of all sorts of bugs including tuberculosis and viruses such as swine flu.
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, when somebody as experienced as the noble Lord makes an assertion, it is difficult to deny it. However, I know of no evidence to the effect of what he affirms. I know that I spent 3,500 hours breathing such air, that it is sourced from very clean air—way above the earth most of the time—and that it is heated cooled. It is very good air; the only thing wrong with it is that it is a bit thin and rather dry.
Baroness Tonge: My Lords, there were reports at the weekend that the Health Protection Agency office at Heathrow terminal 1 is to be closed permanently and that the hours of the other Health Protection Agency offices at Heathrow are going to be cut to daylight hours only, or rather from 6 am to 6 pm. I can vouch for the fact that many passengers come in at night—they fly over Kew to come to Heathrow—so can the Minister explain how those passengers who come into this country at night are going to be screened for swine flu or any other infectious disease?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I was not aware of the facts as asserted by the noble Baroness. The essence of the prevention measures taken by the airlines lies in observing their passengers, in ensuring that people with any symptoms recognised on the aircraft are isolated and reported to the appropriate authorities and in continuing the appropriate tracking of any passengers adjacent to them. If there is anything that I can add about opening hours at Heathrow, I will write to the noble Baroness.
5 May 2009 : Column 442
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, could the Minister tell me, with his experience, whether the circulation of air in airplanes is the only source of possible infection transmission? What about other hygiene measures?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the circulation of air is the least likely reason for infection on an aircraft. There is no evidence that the pressurised cabin makes the transmission of disease more likely. Simple viral infections may be transmitted due to the proximity of individuals who may have such conditions. The airline industry has developed a series of working procedures with the World Health Organisation, IATA and ICAO and issues specific guidelines to cabin crew, cleaners and maintenance crew, the whole object of which is to concentrate on the other hygiene issues associated with this condition. In the United Kingdom, those standards were already being adhered to by British carriers.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that most of the air in an airliner’s cabin comes through the bleed air off one of the jet engines? Indeed, there are grave concerns over the air toxicity in airlines at this time. A survey is being undertaken by the Cranfield Institute of Technology on this air toxicity, which rather goes to show that the air filters do not work properly in planes. Will he say when the Cranfield Institute of Technology will report on air toxicity in airliners?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, all the facts set out by the noble Lord are valid. The Government are taking seriously the concern about toxicity. We believe that there is a problem and have committed to the study as a precautionary measure. In fact, the Committee on Toxicity said that there was no proof either way that there was any connection between the bleed air in the cabin and pilot health. I cannot give an exact date by which Cranfield University will produce its report, but it is actively engaged in the cabin air sampling programme with five participating airlines. I hope that the peer review study will be published as a whole as soon as is practicable.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what plans are being made for pupils, who may have been flying, to take GCSEs and A-levels if, as is likely, there are widespread school closures? I declare an interest as a mother of a GSCE student and an A-level student.
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, fortunately my noble friend has prepared the House for this sort of question. It is a leap too far.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if there was any danger to the health of pilots, would not the appropriate union, BALPA, take it up? Is there any evidence to show that it has done so?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, as a former shop steward in that union, I can absolutely assure the House that, if there was the slightest danger to pilots, the union would take it up with great energy.
5 May 2009 : Column 443
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this really is a growing and serious problem? Has he been informed that the staff on aeroplanes are now having to take medication to ensure that they do not get these colds that so often turn into flu? Finally, is he also aware that, when people smoked on aeroplanes, the routine was to clean the air thoroughly but that, since smoking has been abolished, the air is not cleaned routinely because that is too expensive? Will he do something about this?
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the practical effect of recirculating air is a reduction in fuel consumption and hence a reduction in CO2 emissions. There was a window of opportunity in the back half of the past century—in 1999—when a comparison was made in a wholly random group between the propensity to catch colds, flu and so on in aircraft that did not recirculate and the propensity in aircraft that did. This was referenced in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which concluded:
“We found no evidence that aircraft cabin air recirculation increases the risk for URI”—
upper respiratory tract infection—
European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Order 2009
Motion to Approve
3.08 pm
Relevant Document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 28 April.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Copy of Bill
Explanatory Notes
Amendments
1st Report Delegated Powers Committee
1st Report Constitution Committee
11th Report Joint Committee Human Rights
Report (1st Day)
3.09 pm
Schedule 1: The Marine Management Organisation
1: Schedule 1, page 214, line 8, at end insert “and that as far as is reasonably practicable these skills and expertise cover the range of functions of the MMO”
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall start off the Report stage of this Bill by moving Amendment 1 and speaking to Amendment 2, which is in the same group. As we begin that new stage I should, in doing so, remind the
5 May 2009 : Column 444
Amendments 1 and 2 refer to Schedule 1, which is about the membership of the Marine Management Organisation. We had a long debate on a wide range of amendments on these matters in Committee, in which we questioned qualifications for membership of the MMO and probed the size of its board. On most of those amendments, we had very satisfactory answers from the Government and, while we may have done some details differently, we are not quibbling about the way in which they are going. The amendments crystallise two points that were, perhaps, not finally resolved completely satisfactorily.
Amendment 1 proposes that, in the schedule, so far,
that is, the skills and expertise of members of the MMO, should—
From what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said in Committee, it is fairly clear that that is the intention of the Government. He said:
“To assist the MMO in fulfilling its objective, that relevant expertise and experience should as far as possible be drawn from one or more of the pillars of sustainable development; in other words, board members should have experience of environmental, economic and/or social issues”.
That was all set out in the helpful briefing note that has been provided and, I think, published on the department’s website. The Minister then said,
“The second consideration is the need to ensure a proper balance of skills and experience so the board functions effectively and adds value to the organisation as a whole”.
Finally, he talked about the need for people of the highest calibre to be appointed, and said:
“That must be a prime consideration”,
- “we need to ensure that those high calibre members come from a variety of specified backgrounds to ensure that the board works as effectively as possible”.—[Official Report, 12/1/09; col. 1051.]
I think that the Minister was, in saying those things, speaking in favour of this amendment, which would simply put the principle of everything that he said into the Bill. That ought to be done, and I do not understand any reasons why it should not be.
Amendment 2 refers to the number. The Minister stated clearly in Committee that, while the Bill states that the number of members should be no fewer than five and no more than eight, plus the chair—that is, six to nine including the chair—the Government intended, nevertheless, that there would be, at least in the first instance, the full complement allowed by that range. Some of us argued that if that was the case it would be sensible to raise the number to the middle of the range, but that was not a major issue of principle. It is clear that the Government intend to appoint a chair and eight other members. I do not quibble with that and I am content that that is a sensible way forward.
5 May 2009 : Column 445
This amendment says that, under the further powers of the Secretary of State to change the range of the number of members from five to eight to other figures, the number of members should not fall below five. That is the minimum number necessary to make sense of not just what the Government will do during the inauguration of the MMO but also to make sense of what future Governments and Secretaries of State might wish to do. I therefore suggest that, whatever the Secretary of State might propose, he cannot go below five members plus the chair. That is the absolute minimum that would be appropriate if the MMO is to succeed in its work. Therefore, that should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I should declare that I have been a local councillor for more than 10 years and a member of a number of conservation and sporting bodies, including the Game Conservancy Trust, the BASC and the Salmon & Trout Association, as well as the Countryside Alliance. We had a good debate in Committee on the composition of the MMO board. It certainly is not possible to have every interest group represented on the board: it would quite clearly be too unwieldy. There was consensus from all around the Committee that marine science and marine conservation expertise should be available to the board, whether as a member of the board or through the ability of the board to call in the expertise to give evidence. Provided that ability exists—I should be grateful for that assurance from the Minister—clearly, the most important skill of a member of the board is good judgment. The Committee also had concerns over the board’s ability to form a quorum, which would be exacerbated if the number fell below five. I ask the Minister whether he envisages the number ever falling below five.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, this has been a very helpful start to our debate on Report. It goes right to the heart of the board of the Marine Management Organisation. Clearly, we are expecting a lot of this board. It is right that it should have high calibre people and should be able to operate in an efficient and effective way.
Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that board members represent,
the range of the MMO’s functions. We consider the drafting of the Bill to be sufficient. It allows the Secretary of State to appoint people to the board who have experience related to the MMO’s functions. As the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, has said, we debated this in Committee. I think that there is general consensus that we do not want what might be described as sectoral representation on the MMO’s board but we do seek members with experience and expertise across all three pillars of sustainable development—economic, environmental and social. With a board of between five and eight members, which we think is entirely appropriate, it is not possible specifically to represent all the functions of the MMO. I agree with the noble
5 May 2009 : Column 446
On the question of whether the board would have available to it expertise in marine science and conservation, whether among the board membership or available to the board, I reply in the affirmative. We will come on to the third group of amendments where we will debate the Government’s amendment to ensure that a chief scientific adviser is appointed. I said in Committee that there will be a scientific advisory committee, which the MMO will appoint to advise it. I can reassure the noble Earl on those matters.
Amendment 2 ensures that the number of board members does not fall below five. I have considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on this point. I would have liked to have accepted his amendment as it is. Alas, as ever, I am advised that parliamentary counsel would like to have a look at it. Will the noble Lord accept that I will seek further advice on this and come back to him? In light of that, I would welcome a further amendment from him at Third Reading.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, that seems like an offer I cannot refuse. I thank the Minister for that. It is a matter of common sense. I will be delighted to move a further amendment at Third Reading if I receive instructions from the Minister or his advisers on what the wording should be. On the question of the composition of, and the range of expertise and experience on, the board, I do not think that there is any difference of opinion between myself and the Minister, or, indeed, between us and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. We all agree on what should happen and how. I am simply suggesting that the Bill should say slightly more strongly what we all want to see. We certainly do not want to see sectoral representation or representation of individual organisations. We have all been convinced that that is not the way forward. However, it seems that I am not going to persuade the Minister. The Bill has a long way to go before it reaches Royal Assent and these matters may be discussed further in the House of Commons. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
3: Schedule 1, page 214, line 39, at end insert “has entered into a debt arrangement programme under Part 1 of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002 (asp 17) as the debtor or”
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |