---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 5:"After Clause 11, 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: My Lords, we have debated the merits of this amendment on three previous occasions and, on each occasion, we have failed to elicit a satisfactory answer from the Minister. I shall not rehearse the arguments again in great depth, but I must reiterate the main arguments. Under our present law, which was introduced over 85 years ago, the aircraft owner is made absolutely liable, without defences or limits, for damage caused by an aircraft to persons or property on the ground. The world changed abruptly on 11 September 2001, when four civil passenger aircraft were converted into weapons of mass destruction. Within 11 days, Congress passed emergency retrospective legislation to protect US air transport and to create a victim compensation fund. The total cost so far is estimated at around $40 billion and, as we know, litigation continues. We do not need the same sort of legislation in the UK. Since 1964, we have had a system for compensating the human victims of violent crime and, today, all 25 European Union states are required to have something similar. For property damage, we have had a Treasury-supported scheme since 1993 to ensure that adequate insurance is available for terrorism risks. The cost is met by premiums charged to property owners and to their insurers. The amendment will not change that; there will be no new burdens for the British taxpayer. We must face reality. The threat of terrorism from the ground or in the air has not gone away. If anything approaching 9/11 should succeed over here, it could easily transcend the limits of available insurance, and the financial consequences could wipe out the interests of the British or foreign airline involved. It is a matter of considerable regret that the Minister has not changed his position in the slightest degree. That means that he has not been able to fault our basic arguments. Although he has been good enough to concede that the present position is unsatisfactory, what does he propose? He clearly hopes that a solution will emerge from the present work of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which is charged with modernising the 1952 treaty. Last month, in Montreal, the special group of ICAO seems to have reached the conclusion that not one, but two separate, unlinked treaties may be necessary—one dedicated to terrorism alone—all subject to further directions from the council of ICAO. Even assuming that there are no further changes of direction, we cannot wait to see what might emerge. We would be failing in our duty to the peaceful aims of the international air transport industry, on which so many depend, if, nearly five years after 9/11, we failed to take the simplest steps to minimise the risk of financial disaster for British and foreign aircraft operators. The amendment provides a simple and non-controversial solution. I would like to think that today we could persuade the Minister to refrain from reciting, as he did on Report, the substance of his departmental brief, just as if we had offered no answers or corrections to what were, I think, his misleading remarks. In particular, I deeply regret the fact that we have not received an answer to the fundamental question that I first posed on 8 December, when I asked,"““exactly why airlines should bear any responsibility for terrorist attacks””.—[Official Report, 8/12/05; col. GC173.]" What on earth is the justification for saying that innocent aircraft owners should be liable for the financial consequences of war or terrorism? The House deserves an answer to that basic question. With no other solution in sight, our amendment is a modest and timely step in the right direction, providing sensible and conventional defences for innocent aircraft owners of all nationalities in our airspace. I beg to move.