Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Fifth Amendment) Order 1999

HL Deb 15 April 1999 vol 599 cc909-13

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 18th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move the second and third orders standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The orders are to implement in the United Kingdom the provisions of Montreal Protocol No. 4 in relation to the Warsaw Convention. The protocol allows for the use of more modern data processing methods in the international carriage of cargo by air.

The Warsaw Convention is the international agreement which establishes the legal basis for the liability of air carriers with respect to the international carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo. It was signed in 1929 and amended in 1955 at The Hague. The convention was further amended by four protocols signed in Montreal in 1975.

A sufficient number of ratifications to bring Montreal Protocol No. 4 into force have now been received and, since the UK has signed and in 1984 ratified the protocol, it is necessary for UK legislation to be updated to reflect its coming into force. To bring the protocol into effect in the UK two separate Orders in Council are needed. The Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of Protocol No. 4 of Montreal 1975) Order 1999 amends the Carriage by Air Act 1961, introducing a new schedule setting out the convention as amended by Montreal Protocol No. 4 for the purposes of international carriage by air. The Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Fifth Amendment) Order 1999 amends the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, amending Schedule 1 to incorporate the provisions of Montreal Protocol No. 4 for domestic carriage by air, save that documentation requirements are not included.

By virtue of the provisions of the 1961 Act, affirmative resolution is needed by both Houses of Parliament. Although the second order can only be made using the powers given by the first, it is proper for both orders to be taken together for the purposes of parliamentary process. A voluntary memorandum has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments showing that the making of the orders will be undertaken on a consecutive basis by the Privy Council.

We have notified both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office of our intention to implement Montreal Protocol No. 4 in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so that separate action can be taken in respect of other territories on whose behalf the UK originally ratified the protocol. The department has also consulted widely with airlines and other interested parties. Broadly, airlines welcome the implementation of the protocol since it will allow them to dispense with the costly, paper-based system of data processing.

These orders have been drafted to provide for implementation into UK domestic law of international obligations which we accepted in 1984. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 18th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness—

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, perhaps I should speak now because I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has the last word.

These are innocuous orders as far as I can make out. However, it reassures one that the process of legal creation is not moving so rapidly that the pace of change is too fast for us to keep up. The Warsaw Convention was signed in 1929; it was amended in 1955; in 1975 the protocol was written in Montreal; it was signed by us at some time in the 1980s; and now—good heavens!—it is being implemented into British law. It seems an excellent idea that one should not have to use 12-page documents to chase, as it were, the progress of every piece of cargo through its movement across national boundaries and that one can rely for legal purposes on one's electronic coverage of that piece of cargo. As I understand it, that is the point of the first of the orders. The second order has the same effect as concerns the carriage of cargo inside the United Kingdom.

The only point I have to make is that, given that we are now in 1999 and we all know what is due to happen on 1st January 2000, I hope that everyone's electronic equipment is in full working order.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clear explanation of the orders and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for saying that I have the last word. I do not really have the last word on this matter—in a way. we have all had the last word. The first order has taken 25 years to come before the House. Not only that, I understand that next month a new convention will be discussed that may well change the order. But if the new convention takes 25 years to come into force, we may not necessarily need to worry about it.

It is a fairly unique order. Nearly half of the pages of the Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of Protocol No. 4 of Montreal, 1975) Order 1999 are written in French. That must be fairly unique for an order before your Lordships' House. Presumably it goes back to the days—I must be careful what I say because I do not want to offend any of our French friends—when French was, indeed, a diplomatic language. It was used extensively in Warsaw in 1929 and is still, therefore, kept as being an important language—it may be to some, but I shall not go into that.

Having failed French O-level, I shall not ask the Minister to say whether she can give me an absolute guarantee that this is an absolutely true translation of every single paragraph of the English from the French. However, I have two serious questions to ask the Minister, to neither of which do I expect a reply from her tonight. A reply in writing will be perfectly adequate.

First, the order imposes a fixed limit for cargo, as was set out in 1975. However, I gather that the new convention which, as I said last month is to be discussed, will consider a draft where the limits can be broken if proof of wilful misconduct by the carrier under Article 21A, paragraph 5, is proved. Can the Minister reply to me in writing as to whether Her Majesty's Government support this amendment to the convention as it now stands?

Secondly, the Minister may recall the passage of the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998 which was the subject of some controversy in this House and elsewhere. This is now under judicial review as a result of a case brought by IATA. Indeed, judgment may be given next week. I gather that some of this order depends upon that judgment. How does that judgment, therefore, affect these orders? Again, I do not expect a reply now. A written reply will be perfectly adequate.

Otherwise, I welcome these two orders. They cannot be described, as the Minister stated, as being brought before us in a great rush.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I welcome the contributions on this important matter. I shall try to answer such questions as are possible to answer at this stage. Perhaps I may deal with the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. As he recognised, there is a court case in process at present following a decision by IATA to take the department to court. As the matter is currently sub judice, I would prefer to reply to the noble Lord in writing. I shall be delighted to write to him also on the quite complicated technical question he raised.

As regards the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, although the protocol was signed in Montreal in 1975, it was not until 1998 that a sufficient number of countries had ratified it to bring it into force internationally.

Following formal notification by the Polish authorities that the protocol was in force, officials in the department spent considerable time and effort in drafting the two orders which, as noble Lords will see, are both lengthy and complex. We have also taken sufficient time to consult widely on both the form and substance of implementing the legislation. I think I can say to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, with a degree of safety, that such processes take enough time for them to be given due warning of any further amendments, were any to be considered.

As regards the French text, agree with the noble Lord that French is an extremely important language and one of the major European languages. Although I passed O-level French, my French is not of a standard to be able to deal with the nuances and complexities of text written in French and then translated to be legally correct in English.

Montreal Protocol No. 4 states that in the event of any inconsistency from the authentic text in which it was originally drawn up, the French language text shall prevail. For that reason, as was the case in the 1961 Act, it is necessary for the text of the amended convention to be published in French also. The text appearing in the draft order was taken from the original French versions of the convention and the protocol. I am assured it has been checked on two occasions by those whose French is better than either the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, or I would claim to have, and that we believe it to be correct.

I hope I have answered all the questions posed and that noble Lords will agree that it is important for the United Kingdom not to drag our feet but to implement the protocol by means of the two orders which will provide much greater flexibility for air carriers. I hope noble Lords will feel able to give their approval to this necessary measure. I commend the orders to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.