§ 2.45 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what rights of compensation they consider will be available to the dependants of the British passengers lost in the recent DC-10 disaster, in view of the facts that Turkey is not a party to the Warsaw Convention and that many of the passengers were flying on tickets issued by British Airways.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK)My Lords, in many cases the position, so far as carriers' liability is concerned, will be governed by the Warsaw Convention, as amended by the Hague Protocol and supplemented by the Guadalajara Convention. These conventions would include the passengers who were flying back to the United Kingdom on round-trip tickets issued by British Airways. In the case of passengers whose journey originated in Turkey, however, the position may be different. The situation is undoubtedly complex and the legal representatives of the British victims would be wise to seek early legal advice.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he will agree that under the present jumble of international agreements it would be possible to fly from Turkey by one airline and in the event of an accident for the dependants to receive no compensation; to fly by another airline and for the dependants to receive £7,500, and to fly by yet another airline and for the dependants to receive £21,000? Further, will the noble Lord agree that it is possible to fly by British Airways to Hong Kong and for the dependants to receive one figure of compensation, and to fly by British Airways to Ankara and for the dependants to receive yet another figure of compensation?
Finally, will the noble Lord agree that the recent DC-10 disaster has clearly 233 demonstrated the wholly unacceptable state of current international agreements on the compensation of air victims, and that there is an urgent need for an overhaul? May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government intend to play a leading part in meeting this urgent need, and also what role Her Majesty's Government consider IATA should play?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Earl has emphasised the point that I tried to make, that this is a complex matter. He put forward certain hypothetical possibilities that could arise and I would make two points to him. The fact that Turkey is not a signatory to the Warsaw Convention does not mean that she is not liable to pay compensation if a case is proven in the courts. Of course there are different limits. Some of those limits, as I think was explained recently in another place, are possibly too low and discussions are now taking place.
§ THE EARL OF K1NNOULLMy Lords, will the noble Lord say something about IATA and about the role it should play?
§ LORD BESW1CKMy Lords, I am not quite sure of the relevance of IATA. If the noble Earl will explain exactly what he means, I shall try to answer.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, I understand that at the present time IATA plays a very passive role on the question of compensation. It would seem to many people that IATA should take a lead in this question.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, conceivably it could do so, but this is a matter for the airlines. Her Majesty's Government, or the Civil Aviation Authority, are taking an initiative with the British airlines and I understand it is hoped that this initiative may lead to international agreement.