Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Feb 1959

Vol. 173 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Air Navigation and Transport Bill, 1959—Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Air Navigation and Transport Act of 1936 gives the force of law to a convention known as the Warsaw Convention which was described as "the Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to International Carriage by Air" and the convention was set out in the First Schedule to that Act.

The purpose of this Bill is to give the force of law to a protocol which amends the convention and which was adopted at the Hague in September, 1955. The Warsaw Convention provides a simple, standardised code of legislation governing international carriage by air. It lays down maximum limits of the liability of carriers in relation to passengers, baggage and cargo carried on their aircraft. It also lays down the information to be included in such documents of carriage as the passenger ticket, the baggage ticket and the air waybill. Without such an internationally accepted code of legislation governing carriage it would be very difficult to determine the rights of persons killed or suffering bodily injury or loss of or damage to goods or baggage. The convention has fulfilled the need for such a standardised code and international aviation has benefited considerably from it since it came into force internationally in 1933.

Notwithstanding its advantages for all concerned in the business of international air carriage, experience has shown that the convention is in need of revision. The limit of the carriers' liability for the carriage of passengers, as laid down in the convention, is nowadays inadequate. The convention fixes a maximum limit of 125,000 gold francs for this purpose. Expressed in Irish currency, this amounts to about £3,000. In practice, in various States claimants in respect of air carriage which is not governed by the convention, have been awarded considerably higher amounts. Another aspect of the convention which has given rise to difficulty is its requirements regarding the completion of the various documents of carriage; air carriers have found it difficult to comply fully with those requirements. Further, certain expressions in the convention are ambiguous and it is desirable that their meaning should be clarified. The convention was drawn up in the French language which text is the only authentic one and there are no authentic texts in other languages.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation had the question of amendment of the convention under consideration for a number of years. Following a detailed examination of the matters involved and having obtained the views of its member States, that organisation convened an international conference at the Hague in September, 1955. Forty-four countries, including Ireland, and eight international organisations, were represented at the conference. The conference adopted a protocol amending the Warsaw Convention and that protocol was signed at the conclusion of the conference on behalf of 26 States including Ireland.

The Hague Protocol is set out in the Schedule to the present Bill. Its principal effects on the convention are: it raises the maximum limit of liability of the carrier in the case of injury or death of a passenger from 125,000 gold francs (that is about £3,000) to 250,000 gold francs (or about £6,000); it simplifies the requirements regarding the completion of the various documents of carriage; it clarifies the meaning of certain expressions used in the convention; and it brings the provisions of the convention generally up-to-date.

It will be noted from Chapter III of the protocol that it is subject to ratification by the signatories. To date, nine States have ratified it and it is understood that a number of other States are in the process of doing so. It will not come into force until ratified by 30 States. Accordingly, provision is made at sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Bill for the making of an Order by the Government bringing into operation the provisions of the protocol as set out in the Schedule to the Bill. The intention is that that Order will be made when the protocol itself is in force, i.e. when 30 States have ratified it. When that stage has been reached, the convention as amended by the protocol will operate in relation to international carriage between the States which have ratified the protocol. Until then the convention as set out in the First Schedule to the 1936 Act and as amended by Part II of this Bill will continue to have effect and even after the protocol has come into force the convention itself will continue to operate in relation to those States which although they have ratified the convention have not ratified the protocol.

The only reservation which a State is permitted to make to the protocol relates to carriage by its military authorities. Under Article XXVI of the protocol a State may formally declare that the convention, as amended by the protocol, shall not apply to carriage by or on behalf of its military authorities. With this exception the protocol has either to be ratified in full or not at all.

The protocol when it comes into force will undoubtedly be of benefit in relation to international air carriage. It will represent an improvement on the original convention and it is in the public interest that legal effect should be given to it as is proposed in this Bill.

I notice from the Minister's statement that the limit of liability is being raised from £3,000 to £6,000. A sum of £6,000 appears to be a very low figure, if a death is involved. I should like the Minister to explain whether he is prevented by existing regulations from adopting a higher figure than £6,000. We have noticed the amounts awarded for deaths of persons in traffic accidents. There is no doubt that if a life is lost in a traffic accident, there will be dependents as there have been in the case of accidents we have seen. When this protocol is being ratified, according to the arrangements at the Hague Convention, we should try to have the limit increased or leave the cover unlimited, as far as the payment of compensation in such circumstances is concerned.

I should explain that the adoption of this protocol does not deprive anybody of his rights under common law. If it is possible for a claimant against an air transport company to proceed on the basis of proven negligence, there is no limit to the damages that can be sought. As far as the general position is concerned, we have to keep in line with the other countries of the world. I think it is true to say we would have supported a proposal for a higher limit in respect of damages than is now agreed. It was indeed difficult to get agreement even to raise the old limit, and some of the countries wanted a lower limit, but ultimately agreement was reached on this figure, and I think we have to go along with this agreement.

Would this figure apply in a case where the cause of the accident was undiscovered, like the crash in Shannon?

Yes, where there is no possibility of proving the cause or of establishing negligence.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Bill considered in Committee.
Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

What is the reason for this section? Does it arise out of the Adoption Act?

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share