---

Civil Aviation Bill

This has been a serious and important debate. I must emphasise to the Committee that because this is an aviation Bill, and because the subject of the amendment concerns aircraft, does not mean that because I cannot accept the amendment I am, as the noble Lord, Lord Garden, suggested, somehow condoning a practice. The British Government are not. In the Bill, I am concerned with the future of British aviation. I am also concerned for the Committee to recognise that it is not easy to move from suspecting that something is occurring to which objection might be taken and then to take upon oneself the right to change the nature of international air travel to which Britain has subscribed for more than half a century. It will be recognised that on aviation, the issue is straightforward. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, presented her arguments in reasonable terms and I recognise the force behind them and the issues that need to be addressed—but not within the framework of the Bill. The issues go far beyond the scope of the Bill and they are not resolvable in the way that is suggested. We are bound by international conventions. If we abrogated them, the implications for our airlines and for everything to do with air travel in this country would be most serious. We would be taking a stance on our ability to deal with aircraft landing legitimately in this country within the framework of the international convention. That stance would say, quite contrary to our international obligations, that we would proceed to take action against those aircraft when we are governed by convention so not to do. The implications of us taking action would be that every other state could follow us in exactly the same terms and take retaliatory action against any British aircraft that landed on their territory because we would have abrogated the Chicago convention and our international obligations. Other states could legitimately say that they could, too. Given the position that I hold in government, I am scarcely the person to deal with the fundamental issues present. There is not a Member in this Committee, not a Member in this House and not a Member in another place who is not greatly exercised about the issues. It has been made clear by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary that our abhorrence of the concept of torture is such that we will have no compliant part in it in any shape or form. We accept the assurance from Condoleezza Rice that the Americans take exactly the same view. But I am not the person to be responding to the challenges that have been presented today because they are properly addressed to those who have greater responsibilities. My job is to ensure that a piece of legislation with many merits which will greatly benefit the aviation industry and the general population of this country, including those who live near airports because of the increased safeguards, safely completes its passage through this House. The problem with the amendment is that it would wreck the Bill. We could not possibly put into legislation an amendment which abrogated our obligations under international conventions for air travel. I shall of course give way to my noble friend, who I am delighted to see here.