---

Civil Aviation Bill

I am grateful to both noble Lords for the considered way in which they have spoken to the amendment. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend, whom I left at the end of the previous day in Committee in a state of some disagreement with my response. I did not want in any way, shape or form to truncate the debate but I was mindful of the procedural difficulties we were in. I said at the time that we would have an opportunity to return to the issue today—as indeed we have—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for that. I can reassure my noble friend that I will continue to address and think about the arguments he presented on Monday and to which I gave an inadequate reply. At least, I am sure it was inadequate in his terms. We need to think about these issues because they are complex and very difficult. We cannot accept the proposed new clause any more than we could accept my noble friend’s amendment on Monday, on very much the same grounds. Both proposals contain a fundamental change to the way in which the UK legislates for airline liability for surface damage caused by aircraft. We do not believe this is the way forward. The exclusions to liability proposed in the amendment are largely taken from maritime law. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, indicated that he has drawn upon maritime experience here. However, there is no indemnity beyond the ship owner for acts of war or sabotage at sea which are special to shipping. There is a compensation fund which goes beyond the individual ship owner having to find the resources, but that relates to incidents of oil pollution. An international oil pollution fund supplements the level of compensation which a ship owner would be able to afford. It is used to help to meet the very heavy costs incurred to compensate for depredations made to coastlines, to fishing industries and to others who earn their living at sea after a major oil spill. It is a specific fund created for that purpose. The aviation industry has no such international fund from which resources may be drawn down beyond those available from airline owners. So it looks as though the noble Lord has extrapolated from the maritime example and has substituted for the international fund the UK Government and the taxpayer. The noble Lord will recognise that we are extremely reserved about any position that would involve asking the taxpayer to underwrite in any conceivable circumstance damage caused on the ground by an aircraft. As I mentioned on Monday when we discussed this issue in the particular circumstances of 9/11, the Government did act to provide supportive resources. We formed the troika arrangement to provide compensation for those who otherwise would have received nothing. But that was a one-off position taken during a major emergency. I cannot anticipate whether such an arrangement might once more obtain in the future. All of us hope that such disastrous events never recur. But they might and we do not know what form they would take, and we certainly have no concept of the level of obligation that might be necessary in such circumstances. That is why I must be somewhat guarded about this. With no fund along the lines of the international maritime fund to compensate for pollution damage, for us to accept the amendment would be to put the British taxpayer in the position of being the insurer of rather early resort when something goes disastrously wrong. The noble Lord will recognise my enormous reluctance to accept such a proposal. Because the same concept has obtained in both Monday’s debate on the amendment tabled by my noble friend and on the new clause before us, I am mindful that this is a very serious issue which has attracted considerable support. I continue to consider seriously these issues and I assure the noble Lord that we recognise the intention behind his amendment; namely, that there could be a need to provide support for those who have suffered grievously where the resources of the aircraft owner are woefully inadequate to meet such obligations. But I hope that noble Lords will recognise that I have reiterated the reservations I set out on Monday. We will continue to think about this. I do not doubt that we will be obliged to do so because no doubt the matter will be raised again on one or other side of the Committee. For now, I hope that the noble Lord will accept my arguments and will feel able to withdraw the proposed new clause.