---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. We had the advantage in Committee—admittedly, three months ago—of rehearsing most of these arguments. From the Government’s point of view, not much has changed in that period, so I am afraid neither will the Government’s response. The noble Lord is seeking a fundamental change in the way in which the UK legislates for airline liability for surface damage caused by an aircraft. I am afraid that we do not think that the proposal in the amendment is the way forward. It seems that the exclusions to liability proposed in the amendment have been taken from maritime law—I raised this issue in Committee. In maritime law, these issues obtain only in specific circumstances, which do not exist in aviation law. We do not sign up to agreements in aviation in the same way as we do with regard to maritime matters. The broadening of the removal of liability to include,"““an act of war, hostilities, civil war or insurrection””," raises a number of fundamental issues. I pay tribute to both noble Lords who have spoken, as they dealt with some of those fundamental issues, although one or two were omitted. When we talk of an exclusion for an act of war, which is to say a course of hostility engaged in by an entity with significant attributes of sovereignty, or an exclusion for hostilities, which is to say hostile acts committed when a state of war is in existence and committed by persons acting as agents of sovereign powers, then we are immediately addressing an international issue. Yet the noble Lords’ amendment is silent about this vital dimension to the debate. It proposes a UK solution. Air travel is by its very nature international. It is not an area where it makes sense for the UK to act on its own. It would be illogical to limit airlines’ liability for events in the UK, including the liability of foreign airlines on our territory, without also dealing with the liability of UK airlines for events on foreign territory. The proposal seems to treat the UK as somehow separate from the rest of the world. I maintain that that is an artificiality, which we cannot accept.