§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether this country was a signatory to (or accepted) the agreement reached at the international Carriage of Goods by Sea Convention, 1924, by which it was decided to end the position whereby cargo vessel operators could refuse to accept any sort of liability and, if so, what is our position arising from the subsequent development of 1961 when, in Brussels, a Convention was drawn up to give passengers the same "rights" as goods; and if they will make a statement.]
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government have signed and ratified the 1924 Convention on Bills of Lading, and effect has been given to it by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924. I should perhaps point out that under that Convention the shipowner is not liable for damage to goods by fire, unless caused by his fault or privity. In reply to the second part of the noble Lady's Question, the Convention drawn up in 1961 does not give passengers the same rights as owners of goods possess under the 1924 Convention. The liability of a shipowner is very different under the two Conventions. The United Kingdom has not signed the 1961 Convention, and no country has ratified this Convention, although it may interest the noble Lady to know that Cuba has acceded to it.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that reply, might I ask him if he would not agree that the fact that the 23 countries, of which I have a list here, which have actually signed this Convention (I am aware that only Cuba has ratified it) means that they are in general accord with the principles thereof? May 517 I put to him one further point? Is it not true that, of the three main provisions of the 1961 Convention, the principal one states that a shipowner is liable up to a limit of £6,000 per passenger for death or personal injury to a passenger due to the fault or neglect of the carrier or his servants or agents? Would not the noble and learned Lord feel that it would be a good idea if this country could accept such a provision?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the noble Lady spoke of Cuba having ratified this Convention. No country has ratified this Convention: Cuba has acceded to it. With regard to the question of the provisions of the Convention, it is true that there is a provision in the Convention enabling a shipowner in certain circumstances to limit his liability towards any individual passenger to £6,000. As, in spite of recent events, incidents at sea involving more than a few passengers are, happily, infrequent, and as the limit of his total liability under the 1957 Convention of £74 a ton may well apply, a per capita limit of £6,000 may well operate against the passengers' interests.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, while not being bold enough to pursue the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on matters of law, may I ask him whether he is aware that the British Maritime Law Association has informed me that in fact Cuba did ratify this Convention? I have here a letter, which I should be glad to give to the noble and learned Lord, which gives that information.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am glad that the noble Lady has that information, but it may be that the subtle distinction between accession and ratification has escaped the body to which she has referred.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of recent happenings, they would be prepared to consider statutory control of passenger contracts as has already been done in the United States of America.]
518§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the question whether shipowners should be able to contract out of, or reduce, their Common Law liability is being considered. I must point out, however, that certain legal difficulties may have to be overcome with regard to the application of any legislation on this subject to foreign ships.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, while thanking the Lord Chancellor for that reply, may I ask him whether it is not true to say that the legislation of many countries, including most of those in Europe, and of the United States, forbids shipowners from contracting out, on grounds of public policy, from liability to passengers, but this is not the case in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth countries? Does he not agree that this seems unfortunate?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady for the information she has given. I am not in a position to accept or repudiate it.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, may I try once more and ask the noble and learned Lord whether or not it is true that such an arrangement works perfectly in the air? Is it not true that through the International Air Transport Association limited liability is accepted for loss of baggage or loss of life by passengers? Would it not be possible to make such an arrangement for those who travel by sea? Lastly, may I ask him whether he has not seen the excellent article in the Sunday Times of January 5?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I have told the noble Lady that the question of whether shipowners should be able to contract out of or reduce their Common Law liability is being considered. I prefer to refrain from answering any specific questions on the matter until the considerations are completed.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say whether there is any difference in liability to passengers on the part of shipowners for passages booked in Britain in ships sailing under the British flag and for those sailing under foreign registration?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I regret that I am not in a position to answer that question, because in each case the terms of carriage may differ according to the terms of the contract made with individual passengers.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether there is any difference with regard to ships sailing from British ports in relation to inspection matters for the safety of passengers whether the ships are British owned or foreign owned?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, that is a question far removed from the original Question I answered.