Small Aircraft (Insurance) (Hansard, 20 January 1993)

§ Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require owners and operators of small aircraft to carry third-party insurance; and for connected purposes. The measure is limited, but nevertheless is common sense and it is important, as it will fill a loophole in aviation law by requiring the operators and pilots of small and microlight aircraft to maintain minimum third-party or passenger liability insurance. That would lessen the consequences of accidents, provide security for people who live near aerodromes and have an impact on the irresponsible few who do not bother to take out third-party insurance.

During the past few years there has been a significant increase in the number of small aircraft, and of microlight aircraft in particular. The British Microlight Aircraft Association told me that it has 3,800 members with 3,500 machines and that the number is growing significantly all the time. The Civil Aviation Authority told me that it has 11,000 small aircraft on its register, 7,400 of which are relatively small and weigh less than 273 kg.

The growth of the sport is welcomed, especially in my constituency where a microlight airfield has grown up during the past year, provided that its environmental consequences can be controlled and local people can be assured that, should there be an accident, they are likely to be able to gain compensation, through insurance, from those responsible.

Under present legislation, the Civil Aviation Authority requires people who ply aircraft for hire or fly them for commercial purposes to have third-party insurance. The noble Lord Caithness recently told me that European Community licensing regulation 2407/92, which came into force in this country on 1 January, requires insurance for passengers, luggage, cargo, mail and third parties if operating licences are to be granted to people flying commercially. I also understand that gliders are required to have third party insurance. However, under present law, hobby flyers—people with small aircraft who do not ply them for hire—are not required to have any insurance for passenger liability or third parties. I believe that that should be put right.

There is no legal requirement to take out such insurance despite the fact that, according to the recent letter from Lord Caithness, section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 imposes upon pilots and fliers an absolute liability to pay compensation to people who are injured or where property is damaged on the ground as a result of their activities.

Thankfully, accidents are relatively rare. The CAA tells me that, since 1988, the average annual accident rate for aircraft weighing less than 2,301 kg, excluding microlight aircraft and helicopters, has ranged between 215 and 230. Those figures are relatively small, but, in absolute terms, they are significant. There are about 200 accidents a year involving microlight aircraft, of which between 10 and 30 are major ones and, in the past 10 years, they have caused, on average, between two and 10 fatalities a year.

In one sense, the Government recognise the problem because they have recently encouraged the CAA to distribute 10,000 copies of an updated leaflet on insurance which encourages fliers and owners to take out very substantial third party insurance for claims of up to £1 million or more. 381 Despite that message and the logical demand that third-party insurance should be available, as it is for cars, for all aircraft, the Government have refused to act. They have refused to act despite demands for safety and the long-running campaign by the CAA—supported by the British Microlight Aircraft Association—for such insurance to be compulsory under statute. They have refused to act despite the fact that the vast majority of non-microlight owners and fliers and two thirds of microlight fliers take out some form of third party insurance—it is not terribly expensive and costs between £80 and £200 a year.

The Government's refusal to act now is based on their argument that to introduce a compulsory, statutory system of third-party insurance would be, again according to the letter from Lord Caithness, "administratively cumbersome and expensive." I do not believe that that is right, nor do the CAA and the British Microlight Aircraft Association.

The CAA has told me that it would be easy to introduce such insurance through its existing registration system for aircraft, which is updated annually. It would be easy to make that registration conditional upon proof of third party insurance. Similarly, the British Microlight Aircraft Association, on behalf of the CAA, has to grant a certificate of validation to individual microlights every year. The chief executive of that association literally told me a few moments ago that to combine third-party insurance certificates with its annual certificates of validation would be "administratively no problem at all." That refutes the argument of Lord Caithness that such a scheme would be "administratively cumbersome and expensive."

My Bill, whose scope is limited, is a common-sense measure, which would require people to have third-party insurance, possibly even passenger liability insurance. What fliers do to themselves in the course of pursuing their hobby is up to them, but the Government have a responsibility to ensure that their activities do not damagingly impinge on innocent parties who might otherwise be affected. I commend the Bill to the House.