HL Deb 15 June 1995 vol 564 cc120-1WA
Lord Gainford

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What are the findings of the Inquiry into the Chinook crash on 2 June 1994.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)

I would like to express to the widows and family members of those who died the Government's deep regret and condolences for their loss.

I have this afternoon placed in the Library of the House a summary of the findings of the inquiry into this tragic crash, which claimed the lives of 29 people. After an exhaustive inquiry into all the circumstances, the possibilities of major technical or structural failure, hostile action or electromagnetic interference with navigation equipment were eliminated as possible causes. On all the evidence, it was concluded that the cause of the accident was that the two pilots had wrongly continued to fly towards the Mull of Kintyre below a safe altitude in unsuitable weather conditions. This constituted a failure in their duty and regrettably, therefore, it was concluded that both pilots had been negligent.

I confirm that the Ministry of Defence will pay compensation to the next of kin where this is due. Legal advice is that in the particular circumstances of this accident, the Government's legal liability to the passengers on board is limited by the terms of the 1967 Order (the Carriage of Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967), which derives from the relevant international conventions. The Government have, however, previously made clear their view that the limit of 100,000 Special Drawing Rights (approximately £100,000) arising from these conventions is out of date. Accordingly, the Ministry of Defence will consider claims in this case above 100,000 SDR. In doing so, they will take account of the discussions already in progress within the civil airline industry about the right limit for airlines' liability. These discussions will inform, but not necessarily determine, the Government's decision on whether the Chinook passenger claims should be subject to an upper limit on compensation and, if so, at what higher figure.