---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 28:"After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—" ““LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF TERRORISM (1)   Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16) (liability of aircraft in respect of trespass, nuisance, and surface damage) is amended as follows. (2)   In subsection (2) for ““subsection (3)”” substitute ““subsections (3) and (5)””. (3)   After subsection (4) insert— ““(5)   Subsection (2) shall not apply in the event that material loss or damage as aforesaid is caused by acts of terrorism or by a consequential act of a state. (6)   In the event of an act or acts of terrorism, no person shall be liable for material loss or damage as aforesaid other than the person or persons engaged in such act or acts. (7)   The Secretary of State may issue a certificate of public interest declaring that material loss or damage as aforesaid was caused by acts of terrorism or an act of a state and such certificate shall be conclusive for the purposes of subsections (5), (6) and (9). (8)   Applications to the Secretary of State for issue of a certificate as specified in subsection (7) may be made by— (a)   the owner of the aircraft, or the person to whom it may be demised, let or hired out, or (b)   any person suffering material loss or damage by reason of any act of terrorism or an act of a state. (9)   A certificate issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (7) above shall have the effect of— (a)   authorising claimants in respect of any person suffering death or injury to be eligible for compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, and for the purposes of that Act, the time allowed for making applications shall run from the date of the said certificate; (b)   authorising the Treasury to make contributions towards the compensation of persons having a proprietary interest in real or moveable property which is not insured in the circumstances described in the said certificate, provided that the Treasury shall only pay such sums as may be necessary to meet obligations under this subsection out of money provided by Parliament for this purpose; (c)   confirming the liability of any person in accordance with subsection (6) above. (10)   ““Terrorism”” shall have the meaning ascribed by the Terrorism Act 2000.”””” The noble Lord said: I am at something of a disadvantage, because the Secretary of State has not so far responded to certain submissions made to him on this matter, and I should like to know what he has in mind. The amendment would avoid magnifying the financial consequences for the air transport industry, if anything like 9/11 should succeed over here. I do not know anyone who thinks that such an atrocity could never be repeated. Only this week, the person who put forward this amendment was assured by office of the Secretary of State that the conclusion that would be reached by officials would be communicated to him, but unfortunately, that has not occurred. I understand that the Secretary of State is under a lot of pressure on this point, and obviously, I cannot put the matter forward for a vote at this moment. But it is imperative that we should consider this matter. If Ministers have any hesitation in accepting the proposal that has been advanced, it is more likely to be in relation to the international considerations than the legal complexity. In my view, the legal issues are dramatically simple—but what are the international considerations? Of course, no airline wants to be the first in line to say in public that it continues to fear the possibility of an attack such as happened on 9/11, and that consequently it would welcome relief from potential financial catastrophes. But at this stage we should know what is being considered by my noble friend and, more importantly, by the Secretary of State. At the moment, we are utterly uninformed on this point. I consider that this is a matter of sufficient importance for us to come back to it when we have reflected on what I have said. At the moment, I believe that, apart from mentioning the main points behind the Secretary of State’s thinking on this matter, we should have an opportunity to consider carefully what our response should be, because this is a matter of enormous importance. Therefore, I invite my noble friend to say something briefly about this matter, and then, in my view, we should adjourn so that we can consider the implications of what is being proposed. I beg to move.