| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Aviation Health
12.31 pm
Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place a responsibility on airlines for the health, welfare and well-being of their passengers; in that connection, to amend the Carriage by Air Act 1961; and for connected purposes.
At the time, the reason for that was understandable. In 1929, flying was a novel and pretty dangerous activity. Not many people did it and there certainly were not many paying passengers. Indeed, we were still flying biplanes and there was no such thing as pressurised cabins. The international community reached an agreement—a settlement—in which they decided, on the one hand, to limit the liability in damages for the death or injury of passengers and, on the other, to have no-fault compensation. That was perfectly rational, perfectly logical and perfectly reasonable in 1929. In 2003—in the 21st century—it is ludicrous that airlines have a responsibility for the safety of their passengers, but not for their health.
Air travel is the fastest growing mode of public transport in the world. It happens to be, believe it or not, one of the safest modes of transport in the world. Unfortunately, there is now a wide body of evidence to suggest that it is an extremely dangerous and unhealthy mode of travel, but the airlines have no responsibility for our health.
I am sure that the general public, including those on the 60 million flights abroad that Britons take in any one year, are not aware that when they step on an aeroplane their health is not protected in any way. But can one imagine a more controlled environment than an aircraft cabin? Where and how we sit is controlled; what we can do is, quite rightly, controlled; what we eat and drink is controlled; and even the very air that we breathe is controlled. But the airlines have no responsibility whatsoever for our health. That is an absurd and outrageous anomaly, and it is about time that the House addressed it.
At this moment, the victims of deep vein thrombosis and their families are fighting a case in the Court of Appeal. I have taken advice on this matter, Mr. Speaker. Those poor people are trying to argue that a thrombosis caused by long-haul travel is an accident, as defined by the 1929 convention. They cannot go into court and simply argue that their relatives, who include my 29-year-old constituent, John Anthony Thomas, were killed by the airlines. Because of that limited liability, they will not have their day in court. Many people will be extremely surprised to hear that.
Last month, in Cardiff county court, Judge Graham Jones ruled that the victims of the Girona air crash, who have suffered considerable psychological damage, can sue the holiday company, Thomson, precisely because he knew that, under the antiquated convention, they cannot sue the carriers, Britannia Airways. The situation is absurd and it needs to change. The travelling public have a right to be protected, and the House should lead the world in giving airline passengers that right by supporting the Bill.
The Bill will place a duty on airlines to protect the health of their passengers. One could still have to go to court and prove that one's life had been endangered. We in the DVT campaign believe that at least one in 40 of all passengers travelling for over four hours develops a clot in a deep vein which can seriously damage their health and may even be fatal. If we are right, a huge number of people are affected. We wait for science to prove how many people are being killed by that dreadful condition and to identify the exact causal relationship between air travel and DVT, but there is not a serious clinician in the world who does not agree that there is a link between long-haul air travel and the incidence of DVT.
This is an important Bill, and it is an honour for me to present it to the House. I do it in the name of my constituent, John Anthony Thomas, and all those who have died in the past two years from DVT as a direct result of an international long-haul flight. I do it for the families who are suffering terribly—the Christoffersons, the Browns, the Thomases and the Lambs. I could go on. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Smith, Mr. Paul Tyler, Bob Spink, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. David Kidney, Dr. Richard Taylor, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. David Hinchliffe and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody.
Aviation Health
Mr. John Smith accordingly presented a Bill to place a responsibility on airlines for the health, welfare and well-being of their passengers; in that connection, to amend the Carriage by Air Act 1961; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 136].
Opposition Day[12th Allotted Day]
Road and Rail Transport
Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
12.40 pm
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): I beg to move,
- That this House notes that since 1997 the fastest expansion in rail services, carriage of freight and passenger numbers in a century, huge forward orders for rolling stock, the fall of fares in real terms and the arrival on time of 90 per cent. of trains, have been replaced by cutbacks in train services, the axing of rail freight grants, abandonment of targets for growth in passenger numbers, a decision to increase fares in real terms and the arrival of 80 per cent. of trains on time; recognises that Network Rail has, to date, delivered a substantially worse performance at vastly higher cost to the taxpayer than Railtrack, and promises only to return to 2000 levels of train punctuality by 2010; condemns the fact that an increase since 1997 of over £10 billion per annum in taxes on the motorist has not been accompanied by any significant upgrading of the national road network; and calls for fair treatment for passengers, motorists and taxpayers alike.
First, the Government were entirely right to establish the rail accident investigation branch in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. During the Bill's passage through Parliament, we have made it clear that we would not seek to divide either House on a sensible measure that, I hope, will be a success.
Secondly, I very much welcome the Secretary of State's commitment in principle, as announced in recent days, to a national railcard. He will know that the Rail Passengers Council is particularly interested in a railcard that would encourage more people to turn up and go on trains, and use them at the last minute rather than for pre-planned journeys. It believes that such a card should aim to encourage people who travel infrequently by train to use the railway system more frequently, and—I hope that the Secretary of State and I agree about this—it should encourage more revenue for the rail system rather than cost it revenue.
The third welcome initiative, which has been introduced partly through Government intervention and partly by other means, steps up attempts to achieve the proper collection of fares. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may have had a similar experience to me: I have travelled on the west coast main line all the way from Oxenholme to Milton Keynes before a ticket collector has appeared. A recent development at Peterborough, where a couple of ticket collectors have been put on duty, has raised about £1.5 million of extra revenue in the past nine months. That is welcome, but I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that more needs to be done.
Fourthly, we welcome the decision by Network Rail to bring in-house some work hitherto undertaken by contractors. That is a sensible experimental measure, which will ensure that a proper comparison can be made between public and private sector provision. I also welcome the fact that Network Rail has stressed that that does not mean that it intends to bring all services in-house—it merely wishes to ensure that it is charged appropriate sums by contractors and is not being overcharged.
Fifthly, the Secretary of State will know that the Conservatives support the difficult decision to suspend some rail services for prolonged periods to accelerate the completion of engineering work. It is a difficult decision, because some people will undoubtedly lose out as a result, but, in some circumstances, it is the only means by which engineering work can be completed in a reasonable period.
We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has undertaken a partial U-turn on the policy pursued by his predecessors on new road construction. I shall deliberate on that a bit later, but he should be applauded for going as far as he has.
Finally, let me stress again that no one in the Opposition pretends for a moment that the problems with which the Secretary of State is wrestling are not long-term difficulties. They did not begin when he assumed his post in 2002, or when the Government came to office in 1997. We are dealing with problems that took many decades to build up and whose full resolution will no doubt take some considerable time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |