---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 44B:"After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—" ““RELIEF FROM LIABILITY IN THE EVENT OF WAR ETC. (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)   No liability shall be incurred by the owner of the aircraft (or the person to whom it has been demised, let or hired out) if he proves that material loss or damage as aforesaid— (a)   resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war or insurrection, or (b)   was due wholly to anything done or omitted to be done by another person, not being a servant or agent of the owner (or of the person to whom it has been demised, let or hired out) with intent to do damage.”””” The noble Lord said: I hope that we can deal with this amendment fairly briefly, but even given the time, I thought that we should discuss Amendment No. 44B tonight, as we discussed the matter on Tuesday. As the Committee will recall, on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davies, broached a subject similar to this. Although the subject was similar, this amendment is different in character. It is designed to remove a manifest injustice and a potential financial threat to aircraft operators of all nationalities using our airspace. If Clause 76 is left unamended, and terrorists were to cause a large aircraft to crash into a crowded part of London, the full cost of compensating all victims, property owners and businesses on the ground would have to be borne exclusively by the aircraft owner—without the benefit of any limits or defenses, and irrespective of fault. That all seems very unjust. We are still uncomfortably close to the grim reality of 7 July in London, when innocent victims were killed and injured by a small group of educated, home-grown fanatics. Regrettably, we cannot dismiss the possibility that one day a similarly motivated and intelligent group may succeed in attacking aviation. Were such a terrible event to happen, under the current law, which is in need of amendment, all third parties on the ground have, at present, unrestricted rights to seek full compensation from aircraft owners, irrespective of fault. The amendment would eliminate that injustice by introducing provisions for aviation industry that are similar to those enjoyed by merchant shipping. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and I recently debated the Merchant Shipping Bill. There are great similarities between the random and unexpected damage to our shores that may be caused by oil pollution, and the damage on the ground that may be caused by an aircraft crash. However, there is no similarity between the legal liability of ship owners and aircraft owners. Under Section 155 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, based on Article III.2 of the 1992 Convention, the ship owner may escape all liability if he can prove that the pollution"““(a) resulted from an act of war, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenon; or""(b) was due wholly to anything done or omitted to be done by another person, not being a servant or agent of the owner, with intent to do damage; or""(c) was due wholly to the negligence or wrongful act of a government or other authority in exercising its function of maintaining lights or other navigational aids for the maintenance of which it was responsible””." In this turbulent century, our whole way of life seems to be under attack and counter-measures may be as deadly as the threats themselves. I recall that after 9/11 we were told that air forces on both sides of the Atlantic were authorised, if necessary to prevent the worst consequences, to shoot down civilian aircraft, that had been taken over by suicidal crews. Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 provides no relief for aircraft owners even in those extreme circumstances. The injustice of making a ship owner liable for events or circumstances over which he can have no control has been explicitly recognised by international consensus, and Parliament has seen fit to make this part of our shipping laws. Therefore my amendment of Section 76 for the benefit of British and foreign-registered aircraft owners in our airspace, is copied from the main provisions of Section 155 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. During our previous sitting, the Minister raised a number of objections to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davies, that are worth mentioning. Of greatest note was the complaint that the international dimension was missing. That would be a legitimate point if an international treaty were placed before the House. However, that is not the case. What is under consideration is the Civil Aviation Bill and what may happen in our territory, our airspace. How could a UK statute possibly deal with liabilities in another country? That is transparently absurd and undermines most of the points raised previously. Finally, the Minister must explain exactly why airlines should bear any responsibility for terrorist attacks. It is inconsistent with history. When the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, no one suggested that the Italian cruise ship operators should pay compensation. In the wake of the nightclub bombings in Bali, no one has suggested that the nightclub operators should pay compensation. So why must airline operators be so seriously disadvantaged? I beg to move.