Tag: The Countess of Mar

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2015-12-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the 2010 PhD study by Susan Michaelis Health and flight safety implications from exposure to contaminated air in aircraft showing that 63 per cent of studied pilots experienced short-term effects from cabin air contamination, and 13 per cent were no longer able to maintain their pilot medical certification because of chronic ill health which bore a close temporal relationship to cabin air contamination; and what support is offered to pilots, crew and passengers who are affected by fume events.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Government has not made any assessment of the study referred to. However, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has reviewed a number of earlier reports by the author when conducting its own research into cabin fume events, which has informed the Government’s assessments.

Support for those concerned that their health has been impacted by air travel is offered through the National Health Service. The Government would encourage any pilots, crew or passengers with health concerns relating to fume events in the first instance to contact their GP, who can assess their case and refer on to specialist services where appropriate.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Department for Transport has ever consulted ExxonMobil and other lubricant manufacturers about whether they have ever undertaken inhalation toxicity testing of heated engine oils as a whole, and if so, with what results.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Committee of Toxicity (COT) referred to this and other research on pyrolysed oils in the 2007 Statement that it published after being commissioned by the Department for Transport to undertake a scientific review of data submitted by the British Airline Pilots’ Association on the possible effects on aircrew health of oil/hydraulic fluid smoke/fume contamination incidents in commercial aircraft.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many NHS and Public Health England (PHE) medical or microbiology laboratories (1) are, and (2) are not, currently ISO 15189 accredited; and what is the schedule for such accreditation of NHS and PHE laboratories.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department of Health, Public Health England (PHE) or NHS England do not hold information about which laboratories are and are not International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189 accredited. A list of accredited laboratories is held on the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) website and is the definitive list of accredited laboratories to which the Department, PHE and the NHS refer. Accreditation is covered by the Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) company until recently, and is now part of the UKAS scheme.

There is no intention to transfer the Lyme disease testing service from the Rare & Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL) to another laboratory. RIPL as a department will move from the Porton site as part of the PHE relocation scheduled to commence in 2018 but no decision on the exact date has been made. RIPL is scheduled to transfer to ISO 15189 in late summer 2016, when the ISO inspection team review the tests offered by the laboratory under ISO 15189. Until that time, the laboratory is operating under CPA in accordance with the transition process laid down by ISO.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether incidences of fumes and contaminated air in the cockpit or in the passenger compartment of commercial aircraft that have, or could have, endangered the aircraft, its occupants or any other person are required to be reported under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1018.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Yes. The Regulation does mandate the reporting of events such as those the Noble Lady sets out.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many NHS and Public Health England laboratories that carry out Lyme borreliosis testing (1) are, and (2) are not, ISO 15189 accredited; and when they expect the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory to be so accredited.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department of Health, Public Health England (PHE) or NHS England do not hold information about which laboratories are and are not International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189 accredited. A list of accredited laboratories is held on the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) website and is the definitive list of accredited laboratories to which the Department, PHE and the NHS refer. Accreditation is covered by the Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) company until recently, and is now part of the UKAS scheme.

There is no intention to transfer the Lyme disease testing service from the Rare & Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL) to another laboratory. RIPL as a department will move from the Porton site as part of the PHE relocation scheduled to commence in 2018 but no decision on the exact date has been made. RIPL is scheduled to transfer to ISO 15189 in late summer 2016, when the ISO inspection team review the tests offered by the laboratory under ISO 15189. Until that time, the laboratory is operating under CPA in accordance with the transition process laid down by ISO.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 20 June (HL503), on what basis they state that European Aviation Safety Agency certification standard 25.1309c does not require warning systems for engine oil that leaks onto hot aircraft engines over which cabin bleed air” is drawn.”

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) certification standard CS 25.1309c requires a warning only in the case where an unsafe condition requires immediate corrective action by the flight crew.

By virtue of the engine manufacturer’s compliance with certification standard CS E.510 for the engine, the aircraft manufacturer is able to demonstrate that an unsafe condition requiring immediate corrective action will not exist under CS 25.1309c. Ensuring compliance with these requirements is the responsibility of EASA.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to relocate testing for Lyme borreliosis away from the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory; and if so, when they expect the move to take place, and whether the new laboratory will be ISO 15189 accredited at the time of the transfer.

Lord Prior of Brampton

The Department of Health, Public Health England (PHE) or NHS England do not hold information about which laboratories are and are not International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15189 accredited. A list of accredited laboratories is held on the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) website and is the definitive list of accredited laboratories to which the Department, PHE and the NHS refer. Accreditation is covered by the Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) company until recently, and is now part of the UKAS scheme.

There is no intention to transfer the Lyme disease testing service from the Rare & Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL) to another laboratory. RIPL as a department will move from the Porton site as part of the PHE relocation scheduled to commence in 2018 but no decision on the exact date has been made. RIPL is scheduled to transfer to ISO 15189 in late summer 2016, when the ISO inspection team review the tests offered by the laboratory under ISO 15189. Until that time, the laboratory is operating under CPA in accordance with the transition process laid down by ISO.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-06-29.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 20 June (HL503), and in the light of the fact that there are no detection systems fitted in commercial aircraft to indicate the presence of fumes, how pilots or crew with little or no sense of smell are expected to be able to identify the presence of fumes in cabin air that might constitute a potential safety incident.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

Anosmia (complete loss of smell) is rare and many of the medical conditions/medications which may cause this are incompatible with pilot medical certification. Hyposmia (reduction in sense of smell) is most commonly associated with acute or chronic upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) – crew who have a significant URTI should not be on duty.

Even if someone did have little, or no sense of smell, there are other indications of the occurrence of a fumes event, such as the presence of smoke or a visible haze. In addition, any fumes event associated with bleed air contamination would be distributed throughout the cockpit/cabin, so detection does not rely on the sense of smell of one individual.

Any pilot experiencing symptoms of possible cabin air contamination, such as eye or throat irritation, should follow the standard operating procedure and wear their goggles and oxygen mask, regardless of whether they can smell anything – particularly if they are aware that they have a poor sense of smell.

There is currently no evidence of toxicity as a result of fumes events that would justify installation of monitors (even if monitors suitable for routine use on aircraft were available).

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-03-08.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there are any other circumstances in which 2,500/100,000 serious adverse events and 3,300/100,000 cases of autoimmune disorders, as reported by the human papilloma virus vaccine manufacturers, would be accepted in order to try to prevent the occurrence of 10/100,000 cases of cervical cancer.

Lord Prior of Brampton

Thorough reviews undertaken by health authorities, most recently by the World Health Organization in December 2015, across the world have found no evidence to support a link between the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine and the development of autoimmune and chronic illnesses. The safety of HPV vaccines was thoroughly evaluated prior to being licensed. Around three million girls have been vaccinated so far in the United Kingdom, with more than 80 million people vaccinated worldwide. As with any vaccine or medicine, all reports of serious adverse events following HPV vaccination are taken seriously and remain under continual review. However, such events are not necessarily due to the vaccine and coincidence can also be a factor. The available scientific evidence does not suggest that HPV vaccines are associated with these rates of serious side effects.

The aim of the vaccination programme is to prevent cervical cancer related to HPV infection and the best way to do this is to vaccinate girls and young women. The HPV vaccine has a good safety record, and surveillance shows it has contributed to a significant decrease in rates of infection with the two main cancer-causing HPVs. The UK programme is expected to eventually prevent hundreds of deaths from cervical cancer every year.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by The Countess of Mar on 2016-07-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 11 July (HL873), whether ExxonMobil was consulted by, or supplied evidence to, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food and the Environment (COT) prior to the publication of the 2007 COT Statement and whether the results were conclusive.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon

The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) identified and evaluated over 400 references when producing their 2007 statement, called “Statement on the Review of the Cabin Air Environment, Ill-health in Aircraft Crews and the Possible Relationship to Smoke/Fume Events in Aircraft”. The evidence base consisted of data submitted by the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) and references identified as relevant by the COT Secretariat.

All evidence reviewed can be found listed at the end of the Statement. There are no references to ExxonMobil submitting evidence, or being consulted by the COT during the review.