HC Deb 23 March 1962 vol 656 cc719-52

Order for Second Reading read.

11.2 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is the first time that I have been successful in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills. I hope not only that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, but will find that it is in the public interests of all those concerned with air travel.

During the past few years, Parliament has enacted into our law several reforms relating to the respective rights of passengers and carriers, both by air and by sea. It is important for the future of air travel in particular that these should be standardised throughout the world. I am grateful for the official help which I have received on the Bill and to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have shown an interest in the important points it raises on the rights of passengers and of those who carry cargo by air.

It is worth noting that legislation to give effect to international conventions on the liability of carriers by air and by sea has in recent times been initiated by private Members. In 1958, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham) introduced the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Bill which brought charterers of ships under the Brussels Convention on liability. I remember supporting him in that Measure when I was Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the then Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. My hon. Friend's Measure was something of a parallel to the present Bill, which deals with carriage by air.

In addition to what I have said about the reforms in regard to the liability of shipowners and charterers, last year the Carriage By Air Act, 1961, was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). That was to give effect to the provisions of The Hague Protocol of 1955, which made certain alterations in the Warsaw Convention of 1929, relating to carriage by air.

My Bill is supplementary to my hon. Friend's Act. It contains some provisions corresponding to it. One of its purposes is to enable the Government to ratify the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, which was signed in September of that year. I am not an international lawyer. Indeed, I have ceased to practise law, but I will endeavour to explain to the House the purposes of the Convention.

The Guadalajara Convention cleared up a number of doubts as to the position of international carriers by air. In particular, it dealt with the liability of the contracting carrier, who is a person who enters into a contract to carry by air, but is not himself a person who performs the contract. This Bill, therefore, is important for the rights of passengers by air in the event of accident, and also for those who organise holiday tours abroad for groups of people and then charter aircraft to carry them.

It also affects the case of an operator who arranges to carry passengers or cargoes by air, but because, for instance, his aircraft is temporarily unserviceable, puts those passengers on the aircraft of another company. That is a very important practical effect of the Bill.

It also includes certain possibilities with regard to the carriage of cargo—for example, where a person known as the freight consolidator agrees to carry cargo from several different consignors, but places these goods with a single air operator to be carried in a single operation.

All these would be affected by the Bill. It does not, however, touch cases in which an airline ticket is bought over an agent's counter in the normal way. It does not affect the normal business of travel agencies with regard to the purchase of airline tickets. The reason is that Article (b) of the Guadalajara Convention says: 'contracting carrier' means a person who as a principal— I emphasise the word "principal"— makes an agreement for carriage governed by the Warsaw Convention with a passenger or consignor or with a person acting on behalf of the passenger or consignor; It also defines the "actual carrier" which would normally be the airline operator in this case.

The Guadalajara Convention is also scheduled in French in my Bill, following the precedent set by my hon. Friend's Act of 1961. Conventions on carriage by air aim at achieving uniformity in international law, and the text of the original Warsaw Convention was in French. Both texts in my Bill are authentic, but, in case of inconsistency, this Bill provides, as did the 1961 Act, that the French text is to prevail. I do not think that it would be right for each country to paraphrase the convention into its own law. That is the reason for this provision and for the inclusion of the French text as well as the English text of the relevant articles in the Schedule.

The effect of the Guadalajara Convention is to bring both the contracting and the actual carriers within the terms of the Warsaw Convention, so that the passengers have rights against both, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, without proof of fault, and the liability limits of the Convention are extended to both.

It therefore clarifies in an important and, I think, businesslike way, the rights of passengers to take proceedings, and is, in my view, in the public interest, particularly where inclusive tours by air are concerned. As the House knows, there has been a considerable increase in this form of holiday travel in the last few years.

Before I go further into the Clauses, I must give a short account of how the position actually arose and why the signatories of the Guadalajara Convention came to this decision. Although the question of limitation of liability was fully debated in 1961 in Parliament, on the Carriage by Air Act, I should remind the House of the original Warsaw Convention on Carriage by Air, because this Bill, in effect, makes a considerable reform in the legal definition of a carrier by air under those Conventions.

The Warsaw Convention was adopted by the House in the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, and unified certain rules, particularly on questions of liability. As the House knows, it fixed limits on the liability of the carrier for death or injury of a passenger in notional gold francs to the equivalent of £3,000.

That figure, of course, was subsequently amended by The Hague Protocol of 1955, but this has not been ratified yet and is still not in force. The Carriage by Air Act, 1961, gave effect to that alteration. In the Warsaw Convention, on liability, negligence by an operator did not have to be proved by the plaintiff. The onus of proof was on the carrier to show that he had taken all steps to avoid damage. It made him liable for damage to goods and gave detailed provisions for airline tickets and documentation. The plaintiff was also given the right to bring his action before certain convenient courts.

The Warsaw Convention, signed by no fewer than 50 States, related to international carriage, which was defined as: Carriage between territories of contracting parties or within the territory of a single party if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory not subject to the authority of a power not a party to the convention. That is a paraphrase which means that "international carriage" is, for example, from Paris to London, but could be a trip from London to Malta with a stop at Rome.

Under the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, the House gave the Minister power to apply these limitations of liability to "non-international carriage." That was last done by Order in 1952, applying to domestic flights and, for example, to a flight from London to Turkey, which is not a party to the Warsaw Convention.

The Warsaw Convention introduces a valuable element of uniformity. If one travels by air half round the world today, perhaps on a number of different airlines, one's rights as a passenger will generally be the same throughout and enforceable with the minimum of delay. The Warsaw Convention, however, has begun to creak in places over the years and, therefore, various international conventions have reformed it.

I have already mentioned that The Hague Protocol altered the limits of liability in 1955, and ratification of that provision was the purpose of the Carriage by Air Act, 1961. The Protocol as a whole has still to be ratified. Both the Warsaw Convention and The Hague Protocol suffered from one important ambiguity. They defined the rights of passengers and carriers but they referred only to one carrier—the person who actually performs the carriage and who is now, under the Guadalajara Convention, called the "actual" carrier.

They also made clear that carriage by successive air carriers is a single operation. Where they were not clear—and this has caused doubt for some time—is in the case where the person who contracts the carriage is not the person who performs the carriage. Therefore, which carrier was liable? The person with whom the passengers entered into contract of carriage, or the person in whose aircraft they flew? I have already given practical examples. There has been a good deal of legal argument on this point internationally. The purpose, therefore, of the Guadalajara Convention and of this Bill is to simplify that position.

We want to avoid a situation where, if an accident involves both types of carrier, the interpretation placed upon the Warsaw Convention of 1929 by our courts differs from that, say, of the German or French. Although there has been no actual litigation in this country on this point as yet, I believe that the increase in organised holiday travel makes it very much in the public interest that there should be no doubts. I understand that the point has caused some uncertainty to airlines and to underwriters as well.

It is true that at present a travel agent may be sued for breach of contract in the United Kingdom without any limit to the damages. In the case of inclusive tours, he usually contracts as a principal in the whole operation. If, therefore, he were sued in continental courts he might find himself liable under the Warsaw Convention. I think that now that the point has been raised in connection with contracting carriers the Guadalajara Convention should be ratified without delay, and this Bill enables the Government to do so. The Bill, therefore, gives effect to that decision that both carriers, contracting and actual, under the Warsaw Convention are liable, though they both have their liability limited under the terms of the Warsaw Convention, in future as amended by The Hague Protocol.

I may just mention certain Articles of the Convention before coming on to the Clauses of the Bill. Under Article III of the Guadalajara Convention, acts and omissions of a carrier or his servants or agents are deemed to be those of either carrier. That means the actual carrier or the contracting carrier. Article V also limits the liability of servants or agents of either carrier if their actions are in the scope of their employment.

If the Bill is passed, then, as far as the United Kingdom courts are concerned, the plaintiff, the person injured, or the relative of a person killed, in an accident can sue either carrier or both subject to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention when it is amended by The Hague Protocol. It also means that if only one carrier is sued he can join the other carrier in the proceedings.

Under Article IX of the Convention it is not possible by any contractual provision to relieve either carrier of liability under this Convention by writing something on the back of a ticket or similar action of that kind.

I think that the various provisions of this short Convention are just to both passengers and consignors. Therefore, I hope the House will support the Bill, to the Clauses of which I will now very briefly refer.

Clause 1 simply incorporates the provisions of Article I of the Guadalajara Convention and it provides that the French text should prevail in the event of an argument about textual consistency. The courts can, therefore, look to the French text. By subsection (1) of this Clause the Convention would have the force in law in the United Kingdom irrespective of the nationality of the aircraft. That, as I see it, is the effect of subsection (1).

Clause 2 defines the Warsaw Convention to which the Mexican one, the Guadalajara Convention, of September, 1961, is supplementary. Sufficient ratifications, of which there have to be five, have not yet been received.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

Before my hon. Friend leave the matter of the French text, I should be grateful if he would amplify his views about Clause 1 and its effect in our courts if there should be any difference of opinion.

Mr. Neave

On the question of the French text, so far as I know there is no actual inconsistency between the two texts. It is certainly unusual in modern times for an Act of Parliament to contain a text in French, but the Bill follows the precedent of the Act of 1961.

The courts would be enabled to look at the French text if there were any dispute on the interpretation of either text, and the French text would be the dominant text for all courts of parties signatory to the Convention, as the original Warsaw Convention was drawn up in French alone. That is really the reason. The courts would look at the French text if there were any inconsistency, and the French text would prevail. I hope that that meets my hon. Friend's point. It is quite an important one.

Clause 2 defines the Warsaw Convention to which, as said, the 1961 Guadalajara Convention is supplementary, when Section 1 of the 1961 Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South comes into force and when the Protocol at The Hague is signed and the Warsaw Convention is amended. The process of ratification, I understand, has been rather held up by the United States authorities who are arguing the case and against The Hague Protocol, and there is a very considerable debate going on about the Liability limits under The Hague Protocol, but that is not strictly relevant to the contents of my bill. The carriers referred to in my Bill would come under The Hague Protocol when ratified. Till, therefore, Section 1 of the 1961 Act comes into force the Warsaw Convention referred to is the unamended one on the question of limiting liability.

It may seem curious that I recommend the House to proceed with the Guadalajara Convention defining carriers before the amending Hague Protocol is ratified, but this decision on contracting carriers is such a practical reform, in my view, that there is no need to postpone it. In the interests of the travelling public it should come into force as soon as possible. Only five ratifications are required by the Guadalajara Convention and at a later date, when The Hague Protocol does come to take effect, then the limit would be affected by the new limits, but there is no point in postponing the new definition of carrier and thus the contracting carrier under the Warsaw Convention.

Clause 3, to take it shortly, first of all enables the court in the case of a legal action on this point to have regard to proceedings elsewhere and to make an order at discretion. It also applies to servants and agents a time limit of two years. That limitation for bringing proceedings under the 1961 Act arises from the Warsaw Convention and it means servants and agents enjoy the benefit of that time limit. It provides that contracting States would be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of British courts, that is to say, to be sued in the United Kingdom under the Warsaw Convention.

Clause 4 is a rather difficult one.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

It always is.

Mr. Neave

I can understand the hon. Member's position there, but I think that my Clause is not so difficult as is his.

This is also connected with the time limit I have mentioned. If ratification of the Guadalajara Convention should come into effect first, of course it would mean the Warsaw Convention unamended by The Hague Protocol. I think myself that that will probably happen, and that this Bill should come into force as soon as possible.

Without this Clause we could have a situation that during the interim period before the 1961 Act comes into force servants or agents would be entitled to limitation of liability if the contracting carrier and the actual carrier were different persons but not if they were the same person. That would be, I think, legal nonsense, and this is, therefore, an interim measure. Limitation of liability applies in both cases from the date at which this Bill comes into force, and that anomaly would be avoided. When Section 1 of the 1961 Act comes into force and The Hague Protocol is ratified this interim Measure under this Clause 4 will be spent. We do not know, as I have said already, which Convention will come into force first.

The remaining Clauses are on familiar lines. Clause 5 enables the Bill, if it becomes an Act, to be extended to British possessions and other territories by Order in Council. Hon. Members will see that that is in Article XVI of the Guadalajara Convention. Subsection (2) enables the Government, by Order in Council, to apply it to carriage which is not international carriage. My example was London to Turkey, Turkey not being a signatory of the Warsaw Convention.

Clause 6 provides that the Act shall bind the Crown, which, of course, is a big provider and user of air carriage. The 1961 Act did the same. I notice that there was some debate on that Act about signing "blood chits". This would make that no longer necessary.

Clause 7 provides for citation of the Act, which would come into force by Order in Council on the day which the Guadalajara Convention comes into force by ratification.

I hope I have sufficiently clearly explained the meaning of the Bill. I have already referred to the Schedule and the Convention. We can, of course, reject this Convention, but I hope that we shall not. I hope that by passing the Bill we shall give a lead to other countries in bringing into effect a business-like Measure which will give protection to the travelling public in their rights in the event of accident and will also clarify the situation for those who take part in air travel by organising holiday tours and so forth particularly, and also in respect of the consignors of cargo, relieving them of any doubt as to their legal position in future.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

I wish, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) both on the researches he has obviously made in connection with this Bill and on the enterprise he has shown in bringing it forward. I am sure that the House is grateful for the speech he has made. I wish to say only a word or two about the Bill as I think it may affect the general public and the travel business.

When I first looked at the Bill I was interested in the bracketed words of the Title "(Supplementary Provisions)". I was not sure whether this referred to extra Government expenditure on refreshments we get from time to time when we travel by air, or to the air hostesses who so delightfully serve us whenever we go by international air carrier. I was glad to find that neither of these two excellent extras were to be cut out by the Bill.

I must declare an interest in this debate, because I own a travel business. I am quite sure that anyone who is active in the travel business, which has grown tremendously in recent years, would agree that no travel agency which was worth its salt would want to escape from any responsibilities which may be imposed by this Bill.

Any agent who is also a contracting carrier as defined by the Bill will find both a limitation—on liability—and an extension in so far as it may apply to him for the first time. As my hon. Friend said, this Measure must be taken in conjunction with the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, which repealed and replaced the Carriage by Air Act, 1932. In fact, its origins go back a long time before that.

I was interested to find that the first international conference on air cooperation took place in 1925. That seemed a remarkably early example of international co-operation and also of forward looking by our forebears on the kind of developments one could expect in air transport which have taken place over the last twenty-five years to a remarkable extent.

The international co-operation which has taken place has done a great deal for the development of air travel and the peaceful pursuits of air transport. The travel industry has always followed the Warsaw Convention in this country as it has in many other countries. That Convention laid reasonable liabilities on carriers and has contributed considerably to increased standards in the air and increased air safety.

It is a remarkable thing that many more people are killed on the roads than are killed in the air. Yet whereas an air crash can put people off flying, road crashes do not seem to put them off driving cars. This, I think, is perhaps because people have a peculiar nonchalance about their safety when they are driving themselves. When they are being driven they are a great deal more cautious. They are much more sensitive to the possibility of an accident when someone else is in control.

It is important that the public should know that a responsibility rests on carriers, whether they are air companies or contracting carriers who are employing air companies. The safety of the passenger must be permanent. It is also reasonable that passengers, as they are now, should be safeguarded against the careless loss of or damage to their luggage. It is very upsetting to arrive on the other side of the world and find that one has only one suit and no pyjamas. In fact, that seldom happens.

I sometimes think that our railways could take a leaf out of the book of the airlines and copy their efficient and up-to-date systems of dealing with luggage. The railway system is rather old-fashioned in this regard and has hardly changed in my lifetime, whereas the airlines, coming new on the job, have evolved a system of luggage carrying and documentation which means that seldom do we find passengers inconvenienced by the loss of their belongings.

The Guadalajara Convention supplements the Warsaw Convention. I suppose that it serves any travel agent right that its owner should have to pronounce a name like that. I must congratulate my hon. Friend on keeping his pronunciation of it correct all the way through his speech about the Bill. At least, I assume that it was correct, because I am no more sure about how to pronounce it than is anyone else.

The Guadalajara Convention together with the Warsaw Convention in so far as these Conventions are given effect to by this Bill provides both an extension of and a restriction of liability. The extension is from the common carrier, so-called, to the contracting carrier. The Bill will limit the amount of liability on carriers to the amount which is laid down by the Warsaw Convention, which, as my hon. Friend indicated, has now been amended by The Hague Protocol, although that Protocol is not yet actually in operation.

Most people take out an insurance policy when they are travelling by air. It is right that they should do so. It is surprising, however, how many are not aware that the air carriers have a responsibility under these Conventions and that that responsibility is ratified through the 1961 Act. In the event of any unfortunate disaster, international airlines cover their passengers, but, as I have said, it is wise, and, I think, necessary for anyone travelling by air to take out extra cover.

The term "travel agent" is not mentioned in the Bill. However the term "agent" is. I suppose that inasmuch as the Bill and the Conventions deal with matters of travel one might say that where "agent" is mentioned "travel agent" is implied. The term "contracting carrier" would obviously cover some travel agents and carriers together and also separately, and it would probably have to be decided in the courts whether a travel agent was or was not a contracting carrier. Clearly, no reliable agent contracting equally with another common carrier on, for example, charter arrangements—which have grown tremendously in the last few years—could or should want to escape responsibility.

I said at the beginning that the Bill furthered international co-operation in the air. There is no doubt about that. It crosses the Iron Curtain. I repeat my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, who takes a great interest in these matters, on introducing the Bill. I believe that it will contribute in a small way to an extension of holidays by air from which will come greater pleasure for the growing numbers of people who travel by air visiting other countries. There is nothing better for international co-operation than that this practice should be extended across the world, that our people should visit other countries and that overseas visitors should come here by air.

We frequently discuss export prospects. It is very often forgotten that we gain a great deal of income from foreign visitors who come to this country. This helps our balance of payments. If this movement grew, we should find our international account much easier. If the Bill contributes towards visits between countries and the exchange of good will on vacations, then it will have contributed, as have the two Conventions, to increased peaceful co-operation among the peoples of the world. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.

11.43 a.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)

It is sometimes complained that private Members do not have facilities for bringing Bills before Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) seems to have produced a most complicated Bill in an absolutely first-class way. There is very little for us to say because he has explained the Bill so well. Indeed, the Bill itself is self-explanatory. It is rare for one to be able to give wholehearted support to a Measure which is brought forward on a Friday, but I think that on this occasion everyone welcomes the Bill and wishes to congratulate my hon. Friend upon the extraordinarily clear way in Which he presented it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) said, aircraft carriage is something which crosses every barrier. However, there are always slight gaps in respect of legislation and international rules, and the Bill seeks to fill a gap. I am sure that everybody will welcome it.

The Convention to which reference has been made seeks to rectify one aspect where two carriers are involved. In the modern contracting business, very often one contractor makes the contract but a number of others carry it out. This is becoming increasingly so because of the number of aircraft companies which are in business and the number of charter companies which are all the time coming forward. Hon. Members, and certainly those on this side of the House, are always very pleased to see independent charter companies coming forward and undertaking very important services for the public. But we are also very keen to ensure that they should in no way escape their liabilities when carrying passengers on charter flights.

I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford said about insurance. The public are perhaps not aware of the rights under existing international conventions. They often feel, when they board an aircraft, that there is no insurance whatsoever to cover them. But I believe I am right in saying that there are many clauses in existing legislation and other provisions which enable a private individual to sue a company or carrier in the event of damage or loss being sustained.

Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough)

Perhaps I might point out, since we are dealing with small companies, that sometimes an aircraft crash leads to the dissolution of a company and there are often no assets whatsoever with which to award compensation if there has been death or injury. Therefore, the position is not quite as satisfactory as the hon. Member suggests.

Dr. Glyn

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I know that that is the case. I believe that I am correct in saying that there have been cases in which a company has been found to be one of straw.

Mr. K. Lewis rose—

Dr. Glyn

I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, because he knows a great deal about this.

I would just add that I believe that there is machinery which enables members of both the tourist industry and the carrying industry to make ex gratia payments.

Mr. K. Lewis

I believe that the Air Traffic Licensing Board is very careful to ensure, when it awards a company the right to fly to a certain place, that it is not a company of straw, which would not be able to pay adequate compensation. I believe that this matter has been tightened up, as the Minister may show later, and that that is a very good thing. I should not like it to go out from this House that rights in respect of routes are given to airlines which would not be able to meet compensation claims in the event of something disastrous happening. I do not think that that would apply now.

Dr. Glyn

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has cleared up a point about which there was some element of doubt.

The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) is, on the other hand, correct in saying that there have been cases of the type to which he referred and that people have not received compensation because the company has gone into liquidation and there have been insufficient funds available.

There is also the matter of the French text prevailing. I am rather interested in this point. This is probably one of the first occasions on which this has been mentioned in the House. It is likely to be increasingly mentioned. If, as we hope, we shall soon become part of the Common Market, I have no doubt that the House will have to ratify many items from treaty arrangements and it may well be that in certain cases the language of a certain country must prevail so that there shall be no ambiguity in the courts about the correct interpretation of a clause or rule.

I am sure that the House will give the Bill its Second and Third Readings. I again welcome this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon upon a first-class Bill and the way in which he has presented it.

11.50 a.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) both on his luck in the Ballot and on the excellence of the Measure which he has brought before us. However, unlike him and other hon. Members who have preceded me, I hardly venture to get involved in the great technicalities of the Bill, and would merely like to look very briefly at it from the point of view of the man in the street, to whom the Warsaw Convention and the Guadalajara Convention are strange and foreign matters.

As I see it, this Bill is an excellent Measure from the point of view of the ordinary man in the street, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) said, more and more people are going abroad for their holidays every year. There is a vast upsurge in air traffic of all sorts, and, therefore, it must be very welcome to the man in the street to know that a back bencher has been able to bring in what appears at first sight to be a highly technical Measure which will be of great benefit to the ordinary person.

I agree with what hon. Members said earlier in reference to the excellence of the baggage arrangements throughout the aircraft systems of the world. Many of us would wish that our own internal railways could match that efficiency in handling luggage. We have all heard many disturbing stories from constituents about episodes with luggage and small parcels, and we would welcome the modern approach to this problem of the aircraft industry.

As was said by my hon. Friend in introducing the Bill, Clause 4 is purely interim, and we appreciate that, but if my hon. Friend asks the leave of the House to speak again, I should be grateful if he would clarify what he said about Clause 6. I thought he said that this would have the effect of some method by which people would sign "blood chits" on particular aircraft, and I should be grateful if he could amplify that point either now or later.

Mr. Neave

Perhaps I could answer my hon. Friend now. There used to be a custom, in which some of us were involved in flying in Service aircraft, when we used to sign what were called "blood chits", under which the authority carrying us would be indemnified against any damage to us for personal injury. That will not now be necessary, because the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, binds the Crown through the Warsaw Convention, and carriage by the Crown will include carriage by Service aircraft. This Bill has the same provision.

Mr. Wells

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing up that point.

The other matter to which I should like to refer is the great work of the British insurance industry, as a provider of what are generally called invisible exports in this country. The aircraft section of the British insurance market is an extremely important section of that industry. I welcome the Bill if, in any way, it will ease the rules and make things simpler for these people, who, I believe, are doing a very valuable job for our country, both in the commercial and in the social field in providing the safeguards which have been referred to on both sides of the House already. This is most important, and I think that we should all welcome it.

In yesterday's debate on the aircraft industry in general, there were various references to civilian matters. I feel that the British aircraft industry and the whole flying outlook of the British people are on the brink of a great change. We are becoming more air-minded. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford said that when the ordinary man goes on an air journey, he normally takes out an additional insurance policy. I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend. I myself am an ordinary man, and travel by air fairly frequently, and I am ashamed to say that I have never yet taken out an extra insurance policy for these occasions, putting all my faith in the ability of the carriers and their agents who have booked me. Therefore, I feel that we are to have a new look in this matter.

Mr. K. Lewis

May I point out to my hon. Friend that by his failure to take out extra insurance he was undervaluing his value to his constituents?

Mr. Wells

I think we have had enough by-elections lately.

This Bill will have far-reaching effects in a quiet way. We hope that it will proceed through all its stages. From the point of view of the ordinary man, we weclome the great expert knowledge which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon has brought to this subject, and I should like to thank him for it.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. John Cronin (Loughborough)

We have so far had a very interesting debate on this Bill, and we are very fortunate in having available speakers who have a particular expertise on the subject.

I should certainly like to congratulate the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on the very lucid way in which he has expounded his Bill. Most of us who have been familiar with his speeches when he was Under-Secretary of State for Air and Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation have grown rather accustomed to the high quality of his contributions, and he has been particularly helpful today, because this is a very complex matter indeed.

The Bill refers to three international conventions and to many points of international law. I must confess that when I first studied it, I found considerable difficulty in understanding it, but I had some help. I was fortunate enough to obtain the counsels of a very responsible and progressive organisation known as the Society of Labour Lawyers, which advised me on it, and I also had the help of a very well-known international lawyer, Mr. Andrew Martin. I should also like to express my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation for the very courteous help Which I have had from his Department in explaining the meaning of some Clauses which were not quite clear.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) was, perhaps, a little premature in congratulating the hon. Member for Abingdon on his pronunciation of the word Guadalajara. I have some advantage over him, because I have one of those prevailing infections of the throat which enables me to pronounce it more correctly for that reason.

This seems to me to be a very useful Bill, which fills several gaps in our legislation. Obviously, it was very desirable that the failure of the Warsaw Convention to define a carrier satisfactorily should be put right, and this will remove a good deal of uncertainty by airlines and underwriters regarding their position as to liability if there is an accident. It is also very advantageous to passengers and shippers to have some certainty of recovery of compensation or damages if they should be the victims of an acident, and again this Bill will help in the prompt settlement of actions that are pending as a result of any accidents that occur. From my professional experience I know that a great deal of psychological harm is done to victims of accidents who have to wait a long time before their cases are settled. The Bill goes some way to help in this respect.

Also, the Bill will lead to a substantial reduction in costs in some oases. This will be of advantage to the general public. Although I regard my hon. and learned Friends, and hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, with considerable affection, I feel that it is desirable that costs should be reduced on every possible occasion in the interests of the general public.

I am glad that travel agents who are not themselves principals will not be affected by the Bill. The Bill will affect travel organisers particularly. Some of us on both sides of the House have felt a good deal of concern at the number of, so to say, "mushroom" travel organisations which have arisen recently.

Since the war, there has been a tremendous increase in prosperity and many more people are travelling abroad than ever before. The vast majority of travel organisations are thoroughly reputable and excellent firms deserving of en-encouragement in every way, but there are some which do not give a satisfactory service. Hon. Members will probably be familiar with some of them.

I received a letter recently from a most respected constituent, a lady who is a former Conservative mayor of Loughborough, who wrote in the strongest terms of what had happened to her on a holiday, for which she had employed a somewhat obscure firm of travel agents.

The Bill will be very helpful in making quite clear to travel agents that they are responsible for what happens during the conveyance of their customers by air.

I am glad that the Bill makes certain that an airline still remains liable if it transfers passengers to another airline for some purpose or another. There is a growing tendency for airlines, particularly some of the independent and foreign airlines, to transfer their passengers to another airline when a difficulty arises. Often, this practice results in very unsatisfactory service.

We on this side of the House support the Bill, but, since it affects a very large number of people in a most important way, it is right that I should ask some questions and comment on it. In the first place, it is good that the Bill does not give the impression to the general public that there is any great risk in travelling by air. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford did a service in pointing out that a very large number of people are killed or injured when travelling on the roads and that the proportion of people killed or injured while travelling by air is negligible in comparison.

It is most unfortunate that, whenever there is a serious air accident, the details receive widespread publicity, and sometimes accidents are described in the more irresponsible newspapers in lurid and, at times, quite untruthful terms. It is a favourite "gimmick" of the newspapers to talk about an aircraft having exploded in the air when no such thing has happened.

This kind of reporting does a considerable disservice to our own aircraft manufacturers when competing in the world's markets. However, I will not advert to that subject further. It is very desirable that the general public should realise that the risk when travelling by air is very small indeed.

The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) drew attention to Clause 1 (2) of the Bill and expressed doubt about the French text prevailing when there is any doubt in the legal interpretation of the Bill. This is very unusual. When the Carriage by Air Bill was being debated in 1961, our former colleague, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, now High Commissioner for Ghana, expressed some concern about it himself. It obviously lends itself to difficulty when British law must depend in certain circumstances on a French text, but I assume that there is no way round this so long as we have international agreements.

Mr. J. Wells

It is not all that unusual. I was merely seeking information when I intervened in my hon. Friend's speech. There are very reputable precedents for it.

Mr. Cronin

I agree. It is a matter of what one means by "unusual". Taking the average run of High Court cases, one has to depend on a French text once in a million times, I should imagine. It does not seem very desirable, but it is a penalty that we must accept for taking part in these very desirable international agreements.

Dr. Alan Glyn

The Warsaw Convention itself is in French and, therefore, any modification would have to be in the same language. That is the explanation, I think.

Mr. Neave

There never was an English text.

Dr. Glyn

Yes.

Mr. Cronin

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). All I am saying is that this is a necessary evil which we must accept, though, perhaps, French scholars might not agree with that way of putting it. It seems undesirable, but it is something which we must accept and I raise no further complaint about it.

Clause 3 (1) refers to Article XXI of the Warsaw Convention where there is a limit of liability of 250,000 francs for each passenger and 250 francs per kilogramme for the cargo unless there has been a special declaration as to the nature of the cargo. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what the present situation is? What is the present limit of liability, and is it likely to be changed? Perhaps he would be good enough to tell us in simple English sums which we can understand. The hon. Member for Abingdon referred to this, but I was not quite clear what the present situation is, apart from what might happen if his Bill becomes law.

Mr. Neave

It would be a very good idea if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us how he envisages the situation under The Hague Protocol. These limits have been altered under The Hague Protocol, which has not yet come into force. We debated this in detail on the Carriage by Air Bill, and, of course, my Bill does not cover the question of limitations, but I think it is very important to know.

Mr. Cronin

I am glad that I have the hon. Gentleman with me. No doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself to the point.

Clause 3 (2) fills a gap left by The Hague Protocol in that it provides for the same limitation in respect of servants of the carrier. This is desirable because there is always a possibility that a prospective litigant would sue the servants rather than the carrier for the purpose of avoiding the disadvantage of limitation.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us when the ratification of The Hague Protocol is likely to come into full force? I understand that it requires 30 countries to ratify it and that so far 21 have ratified it. It would be helpful to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has had some liaison with his colleagues in the Foreign Office and has found out what the situation is. What is the likelihood of The Hague Protocol being ratified, and when is it likely to be ratified? That is important because so much of the Bill depends upon it. I understand that the Guadalajara Convention has so far not had any ratifications and requires five. I should be grateful for some information on that.

Clause 6 makes it clear that the Bill will bind the Crown. Clearly, when someone is carried by a carrier who is an employee of the Crown or an agent of the Crown, for instance, Transport Command of the Royal Air Force, under the Bill the Crown will be bound to pay compensation to the limit dictated by the Warsaw Convention of The Hague Protocol. If there has been negligence and if the victim of the accident can prove it, he can clearly now sue the contractor concerned under ordinary common law and receive compensation without any limit in accordance with the verdict of the court. What is the position with regard to the Crown in that respect?

If one of us were to travel in an aircraft of Transport Command, we would probably be obliged to sign a declaration saying that Transport Command was not liable. I presume that in these circumstances, if there were an accident, and if negligence could be proved, the unfortunate hon. Member could not take common law proceedings against the Crown with any hope of success. If that is so, it is scandalous. There is no reason why hon. Members should be subjected to these risks and yet compelled to divest themselves of their common law rights by signing a declaration of that nature.

I now turn to Article VII of the first part of the Schedule. The second sentence is much the same as Order XVI(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature. It says: If the action is brought against only one of those carriers, that carrier shall have the right to require the other carrier to be joined in the proceedings, the procedure and effects being governed by the law of the court seised of the case. That is completely coincident with the Rules of the English Supreme Court of Judicature, but what is the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland where there are completely different judicial systems? It is with some trepidation that I speak on behalf of Scottish or Northern Irish Members, but I cannot see them here in substantial force today, so perhaps it is only right that someone should raise these points.

Mr. J. Wells

Surely that would refer to Clause 5 (1).

Mr. Cronin

That refers to precisely the same point I mentioned.

Another difficult issue concerns hovercraft. I do not think that so far there has been satisfactory statutory definition of hovercraft and the Ministry of Aviation, which is rather deliberate in its movements in these matters, has not taken any decision to regularise the legal position of hovercraft. It would be very helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us some assistance about what will be the situation if a hovercraft is involved in an accident when carrying passengers or goods covered by the Bill.

The hon. Member for Clapham quite rightly pointed out that there are occasions when an airline which is carrying passengers and suffers an accident is unable to meet its liability. I think that he would agree that that has happened in the past. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford hastened to assure the House that the Air Traffic Licensing Board would not grant a licence unless it was satisfied that the airline concerned was in a position to meet its liabilities. What is the position when the airline is registered outside the United Kingdom? In that case, it does not have to receive a licence from the licensing board. I think that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, who has vast experience in the travel business, will agree that it is becoming increasingly common for airlines to be registered outside the United Kingdom and yet to carry passengers from the United Kingdom to some other country. One comes across cases which are somewhat alarming. One occasionally hears of airlines which take passengers by ship and train to a second country and then embark them in aeroplanes to disembark them in a third country. This enables the airlines, if they wish, to evade numerous safety regulations. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is the situation if there is an accident concerning an airline which operates outside this country? How will it be affected by the Bill?

I come to another matter about which I have some feelings of delicacy—the question of compulsory insurance. From the back benches last year, I introduced a Private Member's Bill—it was my first and probably my last—in which I endeavoured to obtain compulsory insurance for motor cyclists. I recollect that there was such a strong and multitudinous expression of disapprobation on behalf of the motor-cyclists that I found it desirable to move a Motion to withdraw the Bill, and I think that hon. Gentlemen received copious correspondence on the matter. I would not like hon. Gentlemen to think that I have some idiosyncratic obsession about compulsory insurance. In fact, it is a subject to which I am allergic and try to avoid. But I feel that there is some case for some statutory compulsory insurance for airlines or anyone who carries passengers by air.

I understand that at present a carrier is under no obligation to take out any insurance against risks, other than third party risks. Admittedly, we have some protection from the Air Traffic Licensing Board, but there is no permanent protection, and it seems to be that it would be a simple matter to write this into our laws by means of a Statutory Instrument. It could be done by means of a simple Order. I should like the Minister to give us his views on this point. Is his Department sympathetic to the idea of some form of compulsory insurance against accidents, or is it unsympathetic?

Mr. K. Lewis

Surely compulsory insurance is unnecessary. If an airline is found liable, it has to pay damages, and, in any case, in practice most of them are covered by insurance.

Mr. Cronin

I agree that, in practice, most airlines take our insurances, and I also agree that, obviously, an airline would have to pay the amount for which it was found to be liable by way of damages, but it all depends on the ability of the airline to pay. This is the important point. In recent years we have had several instances of the airline concerned going into liquidation after an accident and being unable to meet its obligations.

This is not to be taken lightly. No harm could be done if some simple statutory arrangement were made to have this provision written into our law. For instance, it would be simple to bring in an Order that no carrier should be able to invoke the limiting provisions of the Convention unless he had insured himself comprehensively. This would be a simple addition to the Bill, or, alternatively, it could be dealt with separately, and would do nothing but good.

Clause 5 extends the provisions of the Bill to British possessions and overseas British territories, but this Clause will be applicable only if the Minister introduces the Order referred to in subsection (2). It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some idea whether he intends to introduce such an Order at an early stage to enable this helpful Bill to apply to British possessions.

Dr. Alan Glyn

The hon. Gentleman gave a good example of carriers when he said that one could start a journey by sea, and then travel by air to a third country. Would not he agree that the Bill applies equally well if one travels to Paris on a B.E.A. return ticket and comes back on an Air France plane? The argument does not apply in respect of both these air lines because they are well insured, but under the international agreement one can change one's air ticket to any line, and therefore on a simple thing like going to Paris the provisions of the Bill would apply.

Mr. Cronin

The Bill would seem to apply in a case like that, but it is doubtful whether it would apply to an independent air company which was registered outside the United Kingdom, and plied entirely outside the United Kingdom, but none the less for the purpose of carrying passengers from the United Kingdom to some other country.

I have been obliged to ask numerous questions. I hope that the hon. Member for Abingdon will not regard this as being in any sense hostile to the Bill, because I think that it is a useful Bill and will make a desirable addition to the laws of our country. Nevertheless, I think that the points I have mentioned should be looked into, and that we should have some satisfactory answers from the Minister before the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden (Hornchurch)

As we are all so friendly, may I help the hon. Gentleman before he resumes his seat? To save him receiving perhaps an indignant letter, no doubt because of a slip of the tongue he said that he had received a letter from a lady whom he described as a former Conservative and an ex-mayor of Loughborough. I think that what the hon. Gentleman meant to say was an ex-mayor of Loughborough and a Conservative. This correction may save the hon. Gentleman a lot of trouble and worry.

Mr. Cronin

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction.

12.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Wood-house)

I join in the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for having introduced this useful Measure. In spite of the fact that he said he had given up the law, I think I should call him my hon. and learned Friend.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on his pronunciation of the Spanish word in the Bill. I shall try to avoid using the word, and in any case I accept the hon. Gentleman's pronunciation of it. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the many points that he raised on the advice of that progressive organisation the Society of Labour Lawyers, and other equally progressive sources which he may have consulted in preparing himself for this debate.

Mr. Cronin

I should mention that the hon. Gentleman's Department also briefed me extremely well.

Mr. Woodhouse

Thank you.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, I hope that the Bill will enable us to set something of a record in the speed of ratification of an international convention. As my hon. Friend said, the Convention was signed in September last year, and I doubt whether we have ever or shall ever again get through such business so quickly. It may seem at first sight a rather unnecessary hurry, especially as the consequence of the speed, as my hon. Friend pointed out, has been to make the Bill necessarily rather complicated. The complication is due to the fact that it has to be equally applicable to two different situations, either of which could be in force at the time applicable, that is, before and after the ratification of the Hague Convention which has preceded it.

The hon. Member for Loughborough asked if I could give any indication of the timing of the numbers of ratifications in respect of the two Conventions. We expect the Convention with which we are dealing today, the Guadalajara Convention, to be completed before the end of this year. Indeed, we hope it will be as soon as possible within the year. The other one, The Hague Protocol, which needs a larger number of ratifications, is in our view unlikely, for reasons touched on by my hon. Friend, to be ratified by the necessary number of countries before next year. It is perfectly possible for the requisite number of ratifications of The Hague Protocol to take several more years. That, of course, is a contingency which we would regret but fox which we have to be prepared in the case of the present Bill.

Mr. Cronin

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for intervening, but I think it is rather distressing news that The Hague Protocol may be held up for several years before ratification. Can the hon. Gentleman give us some reasons for this rather dismal prospect. I seem to recollect the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) speaking about some difficulties with the United States. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us something about these difficulties, because normally we have the most friendly and agreeable relations with that country and it would be unfortunate if that country were causing them?

Mr. Woodhouse

It is the case, as my hon. Friend said, that the United States is having some difficulty of a legalistic kind in deciding upon the ratification of The Hague Protocol, and it is quite possible that some other countries are delaying their ratifications in order to await the United States' decision. I would hesitate to go into the legal technicalities of United States law in this matter and the problems of American internal thinking, but I should like to add that when I speak of the possibility of a delay of several years it is in our view an outside possibility and that we have a real hope that the difficulties will be overcome by next year. But we have to be prepared for every contingency, and that is why the Bill is introduced now and why it is of a somewhat complicated character.

Of course, if the ratifications of The Hague Protocol took several years, then one of two things would happen without the Bill. Either there would have to be two Bills, one before and one after The Hague Protocol came into effect, or else we should continue to have during th interim period a confused situation with a recognised and important ambiguity in the interpretation of the unamended Warsaw Convention. That ambiguity has admittedly lasted for thirty years, but now that attention has been drawn to it—and the point of the Guadalajara Convention was to eliminate it—it seems to us that the sooner it is eliminated the better.

The drafters of the Convention accordingly went out of their way in the text of it to make it applicable both before and after The Hague Protocol came into effect, leaving individual member countries to follow suit accordingly. We feel that my hon. Friend is right in having framed his Bill, particularly the first subsection of the second Clause, to produce that same result. It means that if the Bill is passed, as we hope it will be, the date on which the country ratifies the Guadalajara Convention will not be tied in any way to the date on which The Hague Protocol is ratified.

It will not matter which come first, the thirty ratifications of The Hague Protocol or the five of the present Convention. What this means, in practice, is that if we ratified the Convention forthwith, which we shall be able to do once the Bill is passed, and the Convention comes into force ninety days after the fifth ratification, there is good reason to hope that it will not be very long before the new Convention is applied by most of the countries parties to the Warsaw Convention. We feel that the resulting clarification of that important Convention can do nothing but good and that it is in the interest of all those concerned with carriage by air, whether they are the carriers or the carried.

I should like to make two brief points on the speed with which this Bill is being pushed through. First, I have confirmed, as I thought would be proper, with the two national air Corporations that they see every advantage in having the Convention ratified as quickly as possible from the operators' point of view. The second reason for speed in the matter is that now that the Convention exists and the ambiguity in the Warsaw Convention is no longer latent but has been brought out into the public eye. This could during the interim period provoke litigation arising from the ambiguity.

No litigation has arisen in the past from the ambiguity, but, of course, once the ambiguity is publicly seen there is a danger that litigation might be started. It is our purpose in these matters to reduce and not to provoke litigation. Moreover, such litigation if it occurred in the interim period would, we have good reason to believe, be settled on different and diametrically opposed principles in different countries according to which court was approached. I need hardly emphasise how highly unsatisfactory that would be for everyone in the aviation world. Now that the matter has been brought into the open, it seems to us that the sooner it is cleared up and dealt with the better.

Now a word or two about the effect of the new Convention in amplification of my hon. Friend's account of it. Briefly, the effect will be to interpret the Warsaw Convention, when two carriers are involved, in the sense which will be in the interest of the passenger or the consignor in each case. Thus, it will relieve the passenger of having to prove negligence against either carrier. Indeed, either carrier, if he were sued, would have to bear the burden of disproving negligence on his own part and on the part of the other carrier if he wished to avoid liability.

The Convention will also allow the user to make his complaints and give his instructions to either carrier, the actual or the contracting carrier, and it will allow him to take action for damages against either carrier or both and to do so before a court having jurisdiction where either carrier is ordinarily resident or where he has his principal place of business. In other words, it enables the plaintiff both to choose his target and the court in Which he attacks it. Neither carrier is allowed to escape or reduce his liability by contractual contracts.

All this sounds rather hard on the carrier, but in return he gets a very important advantage, which is the limitation of his liability. There have been cases in the courts in recent years which have shown that the carrier, including in some cases the travel agent when he enters into a contract as a principal, is in certain matters subject to unlimited liability, and the travel agent, in so far as he is acting as a principal in a contract, should therefore welcome the Bill which will have the effect in certain respects of reducing his liability.

The hon. Member for Loughborough and others have asked me to indicate the present position about the level of liability. It is still a limit of £3,000 as applied by the unamended Warsaw Convention. For international carriage it will go up to £6,000 when The Hague Protocol is ratified. For non-international carriage it will be necessary for us to place an order in due course before the House, and there will then be an opportunity to debate that point.

It is largely because the new Convention deals with all these various issues, in what we consider to be a very enlightened way, that the Government hope that the Bill will meet with approval and will make early ratification possible.

I shall try briefly to deal with a number of inquiries which have been addressed to me, particuarly by the hon. Member for Loughborough, but I think he will excuse me if I ask to be allowed to leave some points to a later stage of the Bill, when I shall try to give satisfaction on every point.

The hon. Member asked about the liability of the Crown, which is covered by Clause 6 of the Bill. The answer to his question, if I understood it aright, is that under Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention, which will be applied to the Crown by the 1961 Act, the Crown would be subject to liability without limit, like any other carrier, in the case of wilful misconduct, if it could be proved against the Crown. Under both Acts, the position of the Crown will be no different from that of any other carrier. I think that takes care of the point which the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Cronin

I am not sure if it is still the practice when being carried by the transport force or some similar organisation for the hon. Members to be obliged to sign a declaration that they realise that the transport force has no liability whatsoever. If it is, obviously it is important to know how that is affected as regards common law liability in the event of an hon. Member meeting with an accident.

Mr. Woodhouse

I am sorry but I do not know if it is still current practice. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon who referred to it, can enlighten the House.

Mr. Neave

I think that it is covered by the 1961 Act, which binds the Crown, but that Act has not yet fully come into force. In principle the necessity of signing a special document excluding liability should no longer be necessary if the 1961 Act and this Bill had the force of law.

Mr. Woodhouse

I think that is a correct statement of the present position. I hope that we can leave it to be confirmed at a later stage of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the applicability of the Convention to Scotland and Northern Ireland. This highly recondite point is being investigated now and we shall be able to provide the answer at a later stage of the Bill, but our present impression is that it will be applicable to both Scotland and Northern Ireland without entailing any amendment of their rules of court.

In referring to Clause 5 (1), which the hon. Gentleman had in mind, I might in passing draw attention to the exception set out: … except so far as it relates to United Kingdom trust territories. In case hon. Members wonder why there should be such an exception, the answer is that there are no longer any United Kingdom trust territories.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the legal status of hovercraft. This is, as he knows, still a debatable matter and has not been settled by legislation. No doubt that will be necessary in due course. It appears under the existing law that carriage by hovercraft is likely to count as carriage by air for the purpose of both the 1932 and the 1961 Acts and, therefor, for the present Bill as well.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the question of compulsory insurance. This question was raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis), and the point was made that it is closely connected with the financial status of companies operating aircraft. We have in the past considered the desirability of compulsory insurance. On balance, we have concluded that it is not necessary. This conclusion was endorsed by the first report of the Air Transport Licensing Board which pointed out that no case was known to it in which anyone had failed to recover damages as a result of a company involved in an accident lacking insurance. This makes the question of the financial standing of the operators one of the greatest importance.

I think that I have told the House before, that the question of the financial standing of operators in this country is one which is very much exercising the Licensing Board at the moment. It is one of the things it is obliged to take into account in issuing licences. It is paying particular attention to it now. The Board in its first year of operation withdrew a small number—I think it was three or four licences—purely on the grounds of the inadequate financial standing of the operators.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will have in mind the status of foreign operators. I should not like the House to think that we regard foreign operators as in any way falling below the standards of our own operators, given that the international regulations under the Chicago Convention of 1944 apply to all operating countries alike. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when my right hon. Friend is considering issuing licences to foreign operators to carry British traffic he applies exactly the same criteria as are applied by the Licensing Board to British operators, and that if he had any doubt of the standing of the operator he would, as a matter of course, take it up with the Government of the country concerned. We do not believe that British travellers are in any way jeopardised by being carried by foreign operators to whom, of course, the provisions of this Bill will apply whether or not the countries of which they are nationals are parties to this Convention. That is clearly set out in the text of the Bill.

I have perhaps not succeeded in covering all the questions raised by the bon. Gentleman, but I assure him that if there are any that I have overlooked they will be taken care of at a later stage.

I should like to add one further point on a matter raised by several hon. Members, and that is the peculiarity of scheduling the text of the Convention to the Bill in French. It is a little unusual as has been pointed out. I think I am right in saying that there are still on the Statute Book in this country Acts of Parliament in French, although I believe the most recent of which that is true was passed in 1439. It is, as hon. Members have said, something exceptional today, but there has to be a prevailing language in the ultimate settlement of any dispute arising from am international convention.

As the Warsaw Convention was in French, and in French alone, it logically follows that French should be the prevailing language, but this need give rise to no difficulty. I should like to assure any hon. Members or lawyers who, in the matter of French, belong to the Stratford-atte-Bowe Group, that they will not have to conduct their cases in French, and that, in the very unlikely event of a dispute arising over the meaning of a word, there would be expert legal support to turn to. But we see no reason why it should ever arise at all, although provision has to be made for this unlikely event. As the hon. Member for Loughborough pointed out, there is no way round it. He called it a necessary evil. I agree that it is necessary, but I hope that it will not be found to be an evil. The same principle was followed in the 1961 Act, and it flowed simply from the fact that we can only accept or reject the Convention in toto. We cannot amend it. I hope that we shall accept it.

No doubt there are some questions of detail which hon. Members will wish to raise in Committee, but I hope that they will not hesitate to give the Bill a Second Reading. As we all agree, it is a helpful Measure which will serve to reduce still further the need for litigation on questions concerning international carriage by air. That is in the interest of almost everybody—of passengers, of consignors, of airlines and of insurers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) said, our insurers underwrite a very large volume of the world's air traffic. We hope that this will grow. It will grow even further if people generally take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) of extending their own personal insurance.

Indeed, I think that the Bill can be regarded as a good wind which will blow nobody any ill, with the possible exception of the lawyers, progressive or unprogressive, because they will not be getting as much business as they might have had from litigation in the past. I notice that none of these has chosen to take part in the debate. I do not wish to suggest that they are likely to take a narrow view on what everyone else regards as a valuable Measure. I hope that I can safely commend the Bill to both sides of the House.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. Cronin

With the permission of the House, I should like to say a few brief sentences. The Parliamentary Secretary has given a very helpful and lucid explanation. In view of what he said, I can say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we see no objection to the Bill and, in fact, commend it to the House. It may well be that if it reaches the Statute Book it will require some further Amendment when it is brought into operation, but as far as we can see, on present information, it is a very desirable Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).