HL Deb 05 May 1999 vol 600 cc682-3

3 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their reaction to the judgment in the High Court of Justice on 21st April in Regina v. Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the Government welcome the judgment given by the honourable Mr. Justice Jowitt since he expressed "complete confidence" in the validity of the Council Regulation 2027/97. He declined to refer the question of its validity to the European Court of Justice and he dismissed IATA's request for judicial review.

Furthermore, since the judgment made no order as to the validity of the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998, that order remains in force.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. How could it be that the commission could propose, and the Government agree, to a regulation which was found to be incompatible with the prior treaty commitments of member states under the Warsaw Convention? Now that the judge has concluded that the European Council regulation is held in suspense, what therefore is the status of the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998 that was pushed through both Houses despite strong and reasoned protest from all sides and when we were the only country in the whole of the European Union to make non-compliance a criminal offence, which was a real case of gold plating?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, as I indicated, our interpretation of the judgment is that the Air Carrier Liability Order remains in force. The judge did not rule otherwise. The European Union has been completely united on this matter. The regulation was passed unanimously and it is being applied in each of the member states. It is true that we have implemented it in terms of a criminal sanction and that other states have different methods. Nevertheless, we are all committed in the European Union to ensuring that this measure of consumer protection for airline passengers is achieved.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

My Lords, in that case can the Minister explain to the House his concept of the judge's decision that the EU regulation should be set aside? There appears to be some conflict here. Going a little further, can the Minister tell the House how many other members of the EU have implemented the regulations and whether any of them have done so in the way which we have adopted by adjusting their own laws? Further, can he say what is going on within IATA in the Passenger Services Conference which was trying to deal with the subject of waiving carriers' rights and limited liability on a fully international basis?

Lord Whitty

My Lords, we and IATA have ostensibly the same end in mind; namely, that we require airlines to provide full compensation to passengers and that the degree of liability should be conveyed to them when they purchase their tickets. Therefore, we regret that IATA felt it necessary to take this step against the implementation by the United Kingdom of the EU regulation. As I said, other member states in the EU have dealt with the implementation in a different way, mainly through administrative actions. Most of them are in the process of transposing them. It is correct to say that uniquely we have used a criminal sanction. That was largely because we believed that an administrative sanction, such as the withdrawal of landing rights, would have been disproportionate.