HL Deb 28 July 1977 vol 386 cc1122-4

3.15 p.m.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government why Mr. Jay was not asked to travel by Concorde when flying to Washington to take up his new post as British Ambassador.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, Mr. Jay's view, with which Her Majesty's Government saw no reason to disagree, was that there was no point in his imposing on the taxpayer the extra cost of a Concorde ticket when he had no need to cross in less than eight hours. Concorde was full on the day in question.

The Earl of KIMBERLEY

My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not right that our Ambassador to the United States should be not only Her Majesty's representative but also a promoter of Great Britain? Would she not agree that it would have been a great boost to our hopes for landing rights at Kennedy, if he had travelled in the aeroplane? Also, would she not agree that it was a great let-down, if not an insult, to all the British workers in British aerospace who built this aeroplane? Lastly, if he travelled on British Airways, which is a nationalised industry, surely it would have been only a book-keeping amount as to whether or not it was £74.50 extra?

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I rather regret the language that the noble Earl used about an insult to workers. I think they know as well as everybody else that Ministers frequently use Concorde, as do even senior civil servants when it is necessary. Many noble Lords opposite worry about public expenditure, yet when a small saving is made it seems to irritate some of them, which I think illogical. The more important point, however, is that Her Majesty's Ambassador is of course one of our best advertisements, and I think that this one is, too. But I cannot imagine that one person flying in it could have made the slightest difference to the opposition to the landing of Concorde, this marvellous aeroplane, in New York, because the reasons why they are against it are completely different.

Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if Mr. Jay had travelled by Concorde there would have been indignant snarls of protest from exactly those sections of the Press—not including the noble Earl—which criticise him for not going over on it?

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I think one of the difficulties would have been that anybody could have said: "Arrogant diplomat turns off important businessman from going on Concorde."

Lord PANNELL

My Lords, is not this Question itself a frivolous misuse of the Order Paper?

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, does the noble Baroness not think, on consideration, that it would have been sufficient, if she had confined her Answer to saying that the plane was full, rather than give the impression that to travel by Concorde means excessive cost?

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, the noble Lord is very experienced in putting questions, but I do not really need any help from him.