TOKYO CONVENTION BILL (Hansard, 13 July 1967)

§ LORD WILBERFORCE
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ LORD WILBERFORCE
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

§ LORD WALSTON
My Lords, may I intervene at this rather late stage in the Bill to do two things: first of all, to 1279 apologise to your Lordships, and to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in particular, for the absence of myself or any other Government spokesman last week on the Committee stage of the Bill. I can assure your Lordships had I known that there was going to be any question which required a Government answer I should undoubtedly have been here. As it was, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, dealt with the query in a far more able and authoritative way than I could have done myself.
I think it might be useful if I were to clear up, if it were needed, any remaining doubts that there may be in noble Lords' minds about the application of this Bill and the Tokyo Convention itself to the current matter of the British aircraft, GASNU, which is at present being held in Algiers. There are many questions which arise from this matter, and I think it may be in the minds of some noble Lords that the Tokyo Convention does in fact, or would in fact, facilitate solution of some of these problems. First of all, I should like to make it clear that at the present time, on the evidence that we have before us, it is impossible to say whether there has been an act of piracy, whether there has been hijacking, whether there has been unlawful seizure, or what in fact has happened, because there is no evidence that could be admitted in a court of law to enable us to reach a decision. Even if such evidence were available, it would primarily be for the court to decide which, if any, of the Articles of the Tokyo Convention, which, if any, of the clauses of the Bill, had in fact been infringed. So there is ab initio a considerable area of uncertainty in this matter, and I do not want anything I might say to appear to prejudge the issue.
The second thing which I should like to make clear to your Lordships is that as I understand it this question as posed by the noble Earl, is, of course (may I call it?) a multiple hypothetical question; it is based on several hypotheses. The first of those hypotheses is that we have in fact ratified the Tokyo Convention which, until this Bill has been passed, we have not done. The second hypothesis is that twelve countries have ratified the Convention and therefore the Convention 1280 comes into force, I think it is, ninety days after that has happened. At the moment only six countries have ratified the Convention, and therefore the Convention itself is not in force. Thirdly, it is based on the hypothesis that Algeria has also ratified the Convention. That is not only not the case, but there is no indication that Algeria is likely to do so; and Algeria in fact was not present at the Tokyo Conference. And, of course, as your Lordships will know full well, the Convention is operative only if both countries concerned have in fact ratified the Convention. So on all those counts it is, as I say, an extremely hypothetical situation that the noble Earl has envisaged.
However, he certainly has great substance in his point, and I am very grateful that he has brought it up, because although the immediate relevance to the problem of the British aircraft and pilots in Algeria is a somewhat remote one, this is the type of happening which can take place, particularly with the growth of air traffic and charter aircraft and so on, which this Convention has to some measure been designed to deal with. Therefore, though the present problem that we have with Algeria is unlikely to come within the ambit of this Convention, for the reasons I have given, it is the type of thing from which we may well draw considerable benefit with regard to other countries. It is therefore one additional argument in favour of this Bill becoming the law of the land and enabling us to ratify the Convention.

THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for having been so good as to clear up the point I raised during the Committee stage. I should like to apologise again for not having been able to warn him in advance that I was going to raise it. However, we received a very clear statement from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I must say that my impression from what he said was that this so-called hijacking of the aircraft—if it was hijacking—if it was not an act of piracy, probably did constitute unlawful seizure. But in view of the noble Lord, Lord Walston's reply now, and also the exchanges we had on the Private Notice Question earlier, I do not think there is anything more I need add to what the two noble Lords have 1281 said, except to say how important it would seem to be that as many countries as possible should sign and ratify the Convention. But if Algeria was not even at the conference when the Convention was drawn up, it looks as though it is a vain hope. Obviously, I should like to emphasise what must be in all our minds at present, and what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has already said, that the two pilots should be enabled to return to this country, in the aircraft presumably, and at once. But this is clearly a delicate matter, and I do not propose to press the noble Lord further this afternoon. I am most grateful to him for what he has said.