§ Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)Richmond and Barnes is a lovely part of south-west London, as almost everybody would agree. One of the things that has ruined the area for some of the residents, as I have mentioned every year and in my maiden speech, is aircraft noise. In fact, since becoming a resident of Barnes I have been woken up more often than not in the early morning by aircraft noise.
Unfortunately, there is another side effect of the aircraft industry. Three weeks ago, in the middle of the constituency in Mortlake, there was an extremely bad accident. A British Telecom employee had a narrow escape when a large chunk of ice, apparently the size of a football, crashed through the roof of a bicycle shed just outside the Mortlake telephone exchange. Some people may find that sort of incident comical, especially since the evidence disappears quickly. However, only a few minutes before the accident one of the employees, Mr. Thomas Ash, had been standing exactly under the place where the ice crashed through. It draws our attention to the fact that on many occasions over the past few years items have fallen from aircraft and, naturally, the places that suffer most are directly under flight paths.
Since 1980 the Heathrow airport consultative committee has been corresponding with the Department of Transport, and before that the Department of Trade and Industry, trying to pursue its request for the Government to introduce a scheme to insure members of the public against death or injury and damage to property caused by objects falling from aircraft. All of those requests have been rejected.
The Heathrow airport consultative committee has the support of the six other consultative committees and many independent United Kingdom consultative committees such as Bristol, East Midlands, Manchester, Southampton and Cardiff. Three hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), have written, as I have, to the Minister to ask for a scheme of compensation or insurance.
It may be that the Government consider, as they have in the past, that such a scheme is not justified. That decision would be based on the claim that the number of reported occurrences of objects falling from aircraft are very small, that legal liability rests with the operator of the aircraft that causes the damage or the injury and, in the few instances where the aircraft is untraceable, financial compensation can be obtained from the normal household and personal accident insurance policies.
I have studied carefully the incidents of over the past seven years. Indeed, when the Minister wrote to me recently he stated that there had been 90 incidents of items falling from aircraft in the past few years. If one studies the information carefully one can see how dangerous such things are. In 1983–84 there were 16 ice falls from aircraft. What are the problems? Seven of the 10 aircraft were foreign registered. Although in some of those cases the aircraft was contacted, in other cases the aircraft that had 1024 had an ice fall could not be seen. An international aircraft that is flying high over this country may have an ice fall, but that aircraft will not be seen.
In 1983–84 the luggage door separated from an aircraft over Richmond and, unknown to the crew, it crashed to the ground. In the same year an aircraft caused a 12 inch by 18 inch hole in a roof. In another incident ice fell on a house, narrowly missing a child. The Civil Aviation Authority's statistics demonstrated that items very often fall to the ground in Richmond, narrowly missing individuals.
A frequent argument is that householders are protected by their house insurance policies. But that is not always so. Some insurance companies do not provide insurance of that kind. A lady who lives locally suffered £600 worth of damage to her property but was unable to claim compensation. Corrrosive substances from aircraft also fall on to people's property. In Richmond, corrosive substances fell on to a house and on to the pavement and caused burns that lasted for 10 days after the incident.
Apart from the 1983–84 statistics, there have been extremely bad years for accidents. The Gatwick airport consultative committee mentioned that between 1 July 1982 and 30 June 1983 there were 44 reported incidents, three of which related directly to Gatwick. A lump of ice that fell from an incoming aircraft missed a bungalow by only 6 ft. The ice hit a tree and ripped off a branch. One wonders what harm that might have done to an individual.
My plea is supported by organisations that support the Heathrow airport consultative committee. Hillingdon borough council, Hounslow borough council, Spelthorne borough council, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire county councils, Slough corporation, the Association of British Travel Agents, the London Tourist Board, the International Air Transport Association, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the National Chamber of Trade, even the Trades Union Congress, the Consumers' Association and many other voluntary environmental and amenity groups agree with me. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will say that, instead of a national compensation scheme for these rare incidents, individuals should be encouraged to take out insurance. I do not agree.
The British Insurance Association states that in many cases it is not possible to identify the aircraft from which an object has fallen, even if it is clear that there is a direct claim against the operator of the aircraft. Nevertheless, the BIA says that it is up to individual householders to take out such insurance as they consider would cover the risk to their house, if various items were to fall on it. The BIA states that most policies cover the risk of damage by aircraft or other aerial devices. Therefore those who are inside a house at the time of a fall might be protected. Those who are travelling in cars at the time of a fall might also be protected. However, the BIA states that although comprehensive motor insurance policies would cover an accident caused by items falling from an aeroplane, those with third party or third party, fire and theft insurance cover would not be compensated if there were such an accident. In a letter that it wrote in 1985 the BIA said that:
Personal accident and life assurance policies, like comprehensive motor insurance policies, would not specifically refer to aircraft but would cover such a claim, since they provide insurance in respect of accidental bodily injury and death respectively.1025 Either one has to be in a house or in a car, and comprehensively insured, or one has to have a personal accident policy to obtain a just result for what could be a severe injury. A child who is injured while in a playing field may not be able to make any claim on an insurance policy. An individual walking in the open might well not be covered.The British Insurance Association states that the estimate, which is difficult to make, of those who carry personal accident insurance is unlikely to exceed 15 per cent. Therefore, 85 per cent. of people are uncovered when out in the open air.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the matter urgently. It is inequitable that people who suffer death, injury or damage should have to undergo the trouble and expense of legal action to try to obtain compensation, often from a foreign airline or one that is unidentifiable. Ice particles cannot be used in evidence because they disappear.
If the cost of the cover is so small, the Government could easily administer a small fund from which compensation could be paid without creating awkward precedents. At the very least I ask the Government to urge insurance companies to carry the risk and to give prominent advertising to personal accident policies because the more people take them up, the lower the cost.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer)My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) has dones his constituents a great service by raising this matter. Like his, my speech will be rather truncated.
My hon. Friend is concerned as a result of an ice fall a few weeks ago at Mortlake. It has now been established that the ice was probably due to a lavatory leakage. The CAA is examining its radar tapes to see whether it can establish which aircraft might have been involved.
Under section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 the owner of an aircraft has absolute and unlimited liability for loss or damage suffered by a person or property on the ground and caused by an aircraft or object falling from it.
I had meant to deal with the matter in some detail, but my hon. Friend will forgive me if I am unable to. I understand that he is particularly referring to ice falls. On the rare occasion when any part falls it usually can be identified. Indeed, the operators are only too pleased to sort the matter out because it is in their interests to do so. Ice falls present a greater problem for the reason that my hon. Friend mentioned. Because of the difficulties that several hon Members have mentioned from time to time 1026 —indeed, my hon. Friend has just mentioned them himself—airport consultative committees have argued for a Government compensation scheme. We have looked at that matter and have concluded that there is no overwhelming justification for setting up a compensation scheme.
Where an aircraft part is concerned, the aircraft can often be traced and its owner held liable in the way that I have mentioned for damage or injury caused. To set up a Government compensation scheme for falling objects would establish a major precedent. One could ask why should the Government not then set up schemes to compensate people for damage or injury caused by other types of activity—falling trees, slates from roofs, and so on.
Most normal household and personal accident insurance policies provide cover against damage to property or personal injury suffered because of objects falling from aircraft. That means that where the aircraft in question cannot be traced, anyone affected by a falling object should be able to make a claim under his insurance. It is precisely because of the ease with which such risks can be insured that the Government have consistently argued that there is no need for a Government compensation scheme. There can be no justification for creating what would have to be an elaborate scheme to investigate, assess and pay out a small number of claims each year when suitable resources and expertise are already available on the commercial market.
We do not think that it is the function of Government to substitute for the insurance companies. It is the job of Government to make certain that there are adequate arrangements for ensuring as far as possible that ice or parts of aircraft do not fall from aircraft.
In Britain that task falls to the Civil Aviation Authority. However, that having been said, the House will have listened with interest to what my hon. Friend said about the need to advertise what insurance is available and, if insurance companies are not providing such cover, to try, as far as possible, to encourage insurance companies to do so. It is our firm belief that most normal household policies have this cover. We shall certainly do anything that we can do to advertise the comments of my hon. Friend on this matter. I am sure that hon. Members will have listened to what he said about the need to insure. With that qualification, I take that point very much on board. The only answer I can give is that we cannot set up a compensation fund.
§ It being Nine o'clock am on Tuesday, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.