The threat to The Package Travel Regulations still remains.  The EU Commission have initially reported that they see a case for a renewal of the Directive, but because of forthcoming EU budgetary and parliamentary elections, such proposals have to remain on ‘ice’.  That means that the earliest we are likely to witness any draft documentation is likely to be from mid 2009 onwards.  In the meantime, as our lead article alludes, there appears to be a collapse in consumer confidence in travel companies.  This shortfall in confidence is not wrought from the current financial crisis, but from the complete failure to recognise and provide the consumer with access to the rights contained within the Package Travel Regulations. 

In September 2007, we attended a meeting at the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) in which it was stated that the Department or Government could not discern that consumers had suffered detriment within their holiday contracts.  That meeting led to our submission of a major report to BERR and the EU Commission.  Events since that meeting has led us to conclude, that whatever we stated in 2007, 2008 was the worst year for complaints since 1997! 

It is the depth and range of complaints that provides deep concern, particularly in the area of health.  An examination of media coverage on the main events of that season proves to be limited, and TV companies are now lining up to produce their annual ‘infodramas’ on those poor old suffering Brits! 

What is missing from an examination of the scandal of returning holidaymakers illness, is an analysis of the effect, both socially and economically, upon an unsuspecting society. 

We endeavoured to examine such a cost, albeit in financial terms, in October 2006 (The Shameful Cost of Holiday Illness). 

Our survey suggested that at its worst, the cost to the nation would amount to £222m per annum. 

What we did not examine however, was the real effect on the individual, their families, or how the resulting infections may be further propagated within the community at large. 

We note the many occupations and professions enjoyed by those who contact HolidayTravelWatch.  What is of great concern is the number who work in sensitive professions, such as child care, old peoples homes, food production and so on. 

It is clear that the vast majority of holidaymakers practice a clear responsibility; they seek medical advices, stay away from work, allow for a sensible period of recovery.  This is often not without cost or pressure upon that family unit.  On many occasions however, the pressure is so great, returned holidaymakers often feel that they have no choice but to return to work.  The potential for harm being committed upon those around them, or within food production processes should not be underestimated. 

Throughout 2008 we received confirmed reports of E-Coli 0157, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Shigella; some we suggest hidden behind the mask and allegations of so called Norovirus! 

Many holidaymakers return to the UK, never to visit their GP, never to receive a diagnosis.  They suffer in silence, never to forget that holiday which has left them with a residual illness, usually in the form if Irritable Bowel Syndrome. 

However, these holidaymakers are probably, and unwittingly presenting the greatest danger to the issue of Public Health in the UK.  This Organisation is aware of the frustration of many Environmental Health Officers (EHO’s) on how these health deficits are reported and treated by National Health Authorities.  Currently, with the exception of Campylobacter and Norovirus, when a confirmed illness is determined, a questionnaire is completed and sent to the Communicable Disease Centre, which is part of the Health Protection Agency. Other than statistical analysis, it appears that is where the enquiry ends! 

We know that EHO’s are so keen to try and control or resolve the hygiene deficits that lead to these serious illnesses, that many write to the tour operators in question; we are told that many do not even receive a reply! 

This then raises serious questions of corporate responsibility and why we as a Society tolerate the weak controls on poor hygiene and illness within holiday contracts. 

In The Independent (11/8/07) it was suggested by ABTA that some 44 million holidays abroad were taken that year.  In our report on the cost of holiday illness, we estimated that of the 30 million Package Holidays sold (2006), some 1.5 million people suffered with varying forms of holiday illness.  We suggest that this sizeable grouping is sufficient to support our concerns and the concern expressed by holidaymakers. 

We recently spoke to a Travel Consumer who works as a Travel Agent.  She and her family suffered with serious illness from a hotel where holidaymakers have confirmed Cryptosporidium.  Her comments were most telling, ‘If they knew that there was a problem at this hotel before we went, why did they send me and my family, without warning, to this place?’. 

Her sentiments were also shared by many hundreds of holidaymakers who became ill following their stay at a Turkish hotel.  Reports of fleets of ambulances ferrying holidaymakers to hospital, holidaymakers on drips, faecal accidents in swimming pools, angry and sick holidaymakers faced with indifference and the ‘cover’ that the illness was either ‘airborne’ or brought in by holidaymakers to the resort. 

The problem did not stop there.  During their flight home, many holidaymakers suffered with sickness, which must have been evident to the crew of the aircraft. 

Intending holidaymakers in their hundreds were not made aware of the problems before travel and many found themselves travelling into a ‘nightmare’.  As the publicity increased on this major event, a ‘three line whip’ was clearly developed and all call centre operators, and many travel agents ‘froze’ out requests for help or to change holidays, citing that ‘normal booking conditions apply’! 

This was the obscenity, that ordinary working people, following a corporate position, were effectively ‘stuffing’ their fellow working citizens.  We understand that such staff have mortgages and bills to pay, but what is the cost to a wider moral and social responsibility? 

The result was a startling effort by a corporation to create a sense of ‘normalcy’; the spread of confusion amongst holidaymakers and the re-enforcement of a brand through increased TV advertisements.  We say, enough is enough! 

In the debate as to the future of The Package Travel Regulations, we have suggested that less Regulation is dangerous for individuals and corporations. 

The idea that a free market with little control over the product delivery, or a clear line of responsibility, as being necessary to save an industry sector, is bankrupt in the extreme. 

Further, we suggest that National Health Authorities and Government can no longer ignore the financial and social consequences for the failures in holiday contracts.  The time has come for a new view on how to reduce the reports and spread of illness. 

As there is no clear appetite to introduce one safe standard in the arena of health and safety (a good example is the lack of progress on the fire safety directive before the EU Commission/Parliament), then we must now take steps to classify and codify responsibilities where illness occurs amongst holidaymakers.�
In the first instance we suggest that there are 2 definitions that should be considered. 

A Bio-Hazard is defined (The Free Dictionary) as :

‘A biological agent, such as an infectious microorganism, or a  condition that constitutes a threat to humans…that provides a potential danger, risk, or harm from exposure to such an agent or condition’.

A Bio-Crime is defined (Pub Med Central—CPS/Archbold) as:

‘A biocrime is similar to an assault crime, except, instead of a gun or a knife, the weapon is a pathogen or toxin…an assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.  An assault can take the form of a battery, that being, when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another’.

In our view these two definitions should form the bedrock of a protocol and regulations, punishable by criminal sanction.  Commentators may cry that such a suggestion is without precedent.  We disagree.

Within The Package Travel Regulations, there are 3 examples where law makers created 2 specific criminal offences.  For example, Regulation 5 provides for certain requirements in brochures.  Where those requirements are breached, the tour operator can be fined upon summary conviction.  Under Regulation 7 if certain information is not provided before the holiday contract is concluded, then again on summary conviction, the tour operator can be fined.

Surely if law makers can become concerned by the failure to provide information within a contract, criminalising those failures, then why has the issue of standards and illness that flow from such contracts not provided the same response?

Perhaps the answer lies within the long debate over the Corporate Manslaughter & Homicide Act.  The debate for this Act followed on the heels of the Zeebrugge disaster, where there was a natural desire to make the directors and managers of companies responsible for deaths caused by the wilful acts of negligence or omissions. 

The Act has led to some commentators expressing disappointment that more senior company officials will not be captured by its provisions.  They argue that the axe will fall on those within junior and middle management for any failures that are proven to lead to a consumers death. 

Solicitors who represent the Travel Industry, are split as to the scope of the Act, insofar as to its applicability to events in a foreign jurisdiction.  During the European Tour Operators Association meeting in June 2008 (Travel Trade Gazette 5/6/08), Cynthia Barbour (Solicitor K&L Gates) stated that she felt that the wording of the Act left the position ‘unclear’ as to whether a company could be prosecuted for the death of a holidaymaker on foreign soil.  She is quoted as saying, “There are two schools of thought on this…In my view an operator could be at risk of prosecution if a decision it made in the UK was grossly negligent and led to the accident overseas”, She went onto to provide an example concerning fire safety issues in a hotel, she asked,

“If letters are sent by guests to the operator pointing out the dangers, but someone from the operator says what the hell, lets take our chances, and people then die, could they be prosecuted?”

She concluded that the harm within the Act is not defined as physical harm, so therefore, “The harm could be caused by a grossly negligent and reckless action in the UK”.  Her counterpart, Peter Stewart (Field Fisher Waterhouse) is quoted as saying, “The position for outbound operators is improved in some ways by the new law because they cannot be liable for deaths overseas”.  The key debate appears to centre around what is classified as ‘emergency circumstances’ and the apparent exclusion of Consumers from what is seen as the relevant duty of care. 

Notwithstanding, there appears to be a clear territorial limit on the laws applicability. Not to be beaten back, Peter Stewart commented the following week at the ITT Conference in Cyprus, he stated, “In reference to the question of whether or not a UK company can be prosecuted under this Act for a death overseas, the answer is a resounding no”.  He continued, “How can I be so dogmatic when there are often so many grey areas in law? Because the wording of the legislation and, most importantly, the government made it clear that this act was not designed to cover deaths overseas as it is unfair to apply UK health and safety standards”. 

And that is the crux of the arguments of the Travel Industry. 

The argument has centred solely, whether it is through the courts or within parliament, that the imposition of a ‘higher’ UK standard in health & safety is unfair; it is an argument that has the lobbying force of many tens of thousands of pounds. 

In our view the argument is skewed. 

If the courts and government appear impotent on the issue of illness in holiday contracts, then perhaps the time has come to review the obligations of tour operators and the UK Health Authorities.  The logic is this; if we are unable to protect the consumer in resort because of some artificial debate on which standard to apply, then it seems sensible and appropriate to impose standards of reporting biohazards and creating a biocrime offence where a holidaymaker becomes ill from a biohazard.

We propose that within the Package Travel Directive/Regulations, provision should be made to impose 2 obligations; one to deal with bio-hazards, the other to create a specific offence of causing injury through a biocrime. 

The new obligation of dealing with biohazards involves the recognition of outbreaks of illness and its reporting to the Health Protection Agency (HPA).  At the onset of reports of illness, the tour operator should be required to notify the HPA immediately of a potential threat to Public Health in the UK from returning holidaymakers. 

That reporting obligation should extend to air crew, with the proviso that they should alert the Port Health Authorities (PHA) of the nature of the illness of the passengers on board.  The PHA should then examine, and take the necessary samples from each passenger for further reporting. 

Where serious infection is recognized or suspected, then the aircraft should be taken out of service for deep cleansing to prevent the risk of further infection. 

In addition, where a tour operator is contacted by a health authority, the new regulation should impose a duty upon them to reply and provide timed structured reports of their investigations and complaints received. 

Failure by any tour operator or airline to comply with such a provision should be subject to a criminal sanction with a fine of up to £250k. 

The most serious proposal involves the situation where a holidaymaker is introduced to a holiday location, where an illness problem is known or suspected. 

If a tour operator either with intent or through reckless actions, causes a holidaymaker to suffer illness, then they should be subject again to a criminal sanction.  To reinforce the seriousness of such an offence, a penalty of imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine should be imposed upon the company officers and company who committed the offence.

In recent weeks, holidaymakers have reported how they have suffered faecal accidents both on holiday and since their return to the UK; some have reported confirmed diagnosis, others now suffer an intensive drug regime, some have not yet returned to work. 

The cost of returning illness is a price too high for a cheap foreign holiday.  It is time to confront this obscenity, and stop this assault on holidaymakers and the social and economic structure of the United Kingdom.
�

Tags: Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E-Coli, Salmonella, The Package Travel Regulations, Travel Industry Political Lobbying

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 15th, 2009 at 1:22 pm and is filed under Holiday Illness or Sickness Articles, HolidayTravelWatch Newsdesk. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.