---

Air Travel and Health (Science and Technology Committee Report)

My Lords, I do not have a lot to say as the Government have supported many of the committee’s recommendations in this follow-up report. In general, following the Select Committee’s original report published in 2000, the airlines have acted responsibly on most issues related to air travel health—with the exception of some, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Patel—and on the whole the public have a better, if not complete, understanding of what they have to do to minimise the dangers posed by air travel. The one issue that has needed attention is that of contamination of the air in cabins and cockpits, so-called ““fume events””, which are rare but none the less important. I join my noble friend Lord Sutherland in asking what progress has been made to ensure that they do not occur in the future. I feel that further effort will be worthwhile in respect of two other issues, and make the point that continual monitoring is essential. The first is in regard to cabin space, especially seating pitch and width, and aisle width. As my noble friends Lord Patel and Lord Sutherland both pointed out, the seat pitch is often so small that it is often not possible for tall people to adopt the brace position. That is clearly unsatisfactory. Further, in my experience, on transatlantic flights the seats in some aircraft are so narrow that it is almost impossible for many people to avoid lateral pressure on the lower body, which must surely interfere with blood circulation. Passengers are correctly told to exercise to the extent that they can in their seats to reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis, but that becomes almost impossible in a very narrow seat, and the opportunity to walk around, which is also recommended, is easier said than done. During most flights, the aisles are frequently blocked by catering trolleys and those carrying duty-free goods, and in any case, if more than about 20 per cent of the passengers were to get out of their seats at one time, the aisles would be blocked. Because of all those factors, any further reductions in space per passenger must be avoided, and the authorities must remain vigilant in checking that airlines do not break the already only marginally adequate regulations. The second issue is cabin pressure. Although that has been considered at length by the authorities and a minimum cabin pressure equivalent to a height of 2,400 metres or 8,000 feet has been established, and in general is adhered to by the airlines, its consequences are not appreciated by the average traveller. People often comment that they are unable to sleep on long flights and think that that is a problem related to themselves as individuals rather than being due to low pressure in the cabin, which is only 75 per cent of the pressure at sea level. Such pressures are encountered at the highest mountain resorts—most hotels and chalets at Alpine ski resorts are in fact considerably lower than 8,000 feet—but in general it is realised by most who visit these resorts that it will take a couple of days before they become fully acclimatised to the lower pressure. The reduced pressure is normally not a serious problem as people do not exercise at altitude in aircraft, but it can be serious if the passenger suffers from heart or lung disease. Airlines point that out to those who take the trouble to search the information provided by them, but it is not usually made obvious to those who do not feel that they need to inquire. Most doctors are familiar with the dangers and if consulted will provide accurate advice and, for example, may suggest that the passenger be tested in a respiratory clinic, but there are many cases when such advice is not sought. I remember Alistair Cooke in a ““Letter from America”” explaining how he had had a bad turn on a flight crossing the USA and had been given oxygen in order to recover. In his inimitable style, he went on to explain the reason, admitting that he had not been aware when he flew in an aircraft that he was in effect visiting a very high mountain resort. I have been unable to find anyone who can explain the economies of maintaining a given cabin pressure. I do know, however, that it is one of the selling points of the luxury executive jets, such as those used by the heads of the Detroit automobile companies to travel to Washington to ask for money. They are pressurised at about 1,200 metres rather than 2,400 metres, thereby making them less stressful to travel in. I suggest that the commercial airlines are asked why they cannot do the same. If it is a safety issue, because commercial aircraft are not designed for the higher pressure difference across the fuselage skin, why do planes often fly at high altitudes for some time before the cabin pressure is fully lowered? I frequently travel with an altimeter and take an interest in monitoring what the captain is doing with the cabin environment. The conditions inside commercial aircraft should be continually monitored to ensure the health and well-being of passengers, and it should be clear that those who do the monitoring are truly independent of the airlines and the aircraft manufacturers, and that the atmosphere and general conditions are optimised for the comfort and well-being of the passengers.