HC Deb 28 November 1963 vol 685 cc632-42

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.

—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North)

I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this issue in the House. I think that it would be best if I begin by briefly outlining the events which led up to this debate. In doing this, I shall set them out as fairly as I can. I have no wish to blackguard B.E.A., and I should also make it clear that no proceedings by B.E.A. have been commenced against me. In fairness, I should also make it clear that B.E.A. has not threatened me in any way.

In the middle of July, I put on the Order Paper a Parliamentary Question to the Minister of Aviation, asking that he should give a general direction to B.E.A. that not more than five seats abreast should be permitted in the Vanguard aeroplane. There are at present six. Following this, before the Question was reached in this House, I made a comment to the Lobby correspondent of the Belfast News-Letter. This comment was printed in the Belfast News-Letter on Friday, 26th July. The words which were offensive to B.E.A. were: The present seating is cramped, uncomfortable and unsafe. It means that the gangway in the aircraft is much too narrow—a factor that might turn a minor mishap into a major accident. I must emphasise strongly that there was no intention on my behalf, or on that of the Belfast News-Letter, to suggest that the Vanguard itself as a plane was unsafe. It is widely accepted that it is a fine aeroplane. The point of my comment was that the seating, with six persons abreast, meant that the gangway was rather narrow, that it would be more dangerous in the event of a minor mishap than would a gangway in which only five persons were converging, and that in the event of a minor mishap five persons could come on to the gangway and leave the aircraft more quickly than six. These, of course, are circumstances in which seconds can be of absolutely vital importance.

Following these remarks, a letter was sent from B.E.A.'s solicitors, which reached the assistant manager of the Belfast News-Letter—and I emphasise the timing of this—at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 7th August. The request was for an apology and proposals for damages not later than 4.30 p.m. the same day. Thus, one-and-a-half hours was given by B.E.A.—otherwise a writ would be served immediately. In fact, the writ arrived through the post the following morning.

I am not in any way criticising B.E.A.'s solicitors. My complaint is purely against B.E.A., which in this matter acted in a most totalitarian fashion. In 1938, when Adolf Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, the ultimatum he delivered was in more generous tones. It is important to note the timing of all these events. My comments were published in the Belfast News-Letter on Friday, 26th July. It will be recalled that the House of Commons sat for a further eight days following that date and adjourned on Friday, 2nd August. The question which immediately springs to mind is whether these proceedings were held over for those eight days so that the matter could not be raised in Parliament immediately. I am not making an accusation, because I do not know the facts. I am merely suspicious. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to arrange, since a matter of honour appears to be involved for B.E.A., for all the papers on this matter to be examined by an independent person to see whether there was any delay of this kind.

The Belfast News-Letter is one of the oldest newspapers in Britain. It was founded in 1737 and is a most respon- sible journal, certainly not prone to sensationalism. If B.E.A. felt that the words which I used could give rise to public disquiet, why did not the Corporation at once approach the newspaper and, perhaps, myself to see if this could be cleared up? I am certain that if this approach had been made—and I say this having had conversations with the newspaper—in a friendly and responsible way, there would have been an immediate response if B.E.A. felt that this comment might arouse public alarm about this aeroplane. Why did B.E.A. act in this way? This question is the central point in tonight's debate.

The background is that there has been immense criticism in Northern Ireland of British European Airways over the last twelve months, and my view is that B.E.A. was spoiling for a fight and took the line, "We'll teach our critics in Northern Ireland that they cannot get away with criticising B.E.A. This is our opportunity to have a fight." I feel that there has been a substantial element of vindictiveness shown by the Corporation in the whole transaction.

The Belfast News-Letter was certainly put into great difficulties by this attitude. It had the difficulty of proofs in dealing with a highly technical aircraft, and what is obviously a matter of highly-specialised judgment. It had the uncertainty of what would be the measure of damages that might be awarded by a court—if damages were awarded. It also had to face the fact that B.E.A. had enormous resources while the Belfast News-Letter is a provincial newspaper of limited means. It also had to face the difficulty that the proceedings would be, by their very nature, extremely lengthy, and the costs enormous. The newspaper therefore took the decision to make an apology and to pay damages and a sum in costs.

My hon. Friend has power to make a general direction to B.E.A., and I hope that, having heard these circumstances, he will not adopt a passive rôle, but will accept that the facts concerning B.E.A. should be cleared up. He might think it right to give a general direction to B.E.A. to repay the damages paid by the Belfast News-Letter, leaving over the question of costs. I am sure he will reflect that, as a public relations exer- cise, B.E.A. has been extraordinarily clumsy and has earned for itself very much more ill-will than it would have done by the use of more reasonable techniques.

The other question is whether the seating of five or six passengers abreast in the Vanguard is the more satisfactory. There were Questions in the House, on this topic, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me on 7th August as follows: The fact is that this aircraft"— that is, the Vanguard— was conceived to allow a good deal of flexibility in the seating arrangements to meet the needs of particular operators and particular routes. The design upon which the first production order for the aircraft was based, namely, the order for B.E.A., provided for six abreast seating. That was in reply to my query whether the plane had been originally designed for five abreast, as I have been advised. My immediate reaction to my hon. Friend's letter, which does not deny that, is that from its wording it might almost have been drafted by the present Foreign Secretary. Certainly, for clarity, it does not take one very much further.

The other interesting point is that the only other airline that uses the Vanguard—Trans-Canada Airlines—has five seats abreast, and that is how it is licensed by the Canadian Air Licensing Board. Trans-Canada tells me: Six abreast seating does not meet Trans-Canada Airlines standard of passenger comfort. My hon. Friend might arrange for the Air Licensing Board to look at the subject again as objectively as possible, and removed from these events.

My reasons for being so irritated by B.E.A.'s heavy handling of this affair are, first, and partly, its grossly unfair dealing with the Belfast News-Letter—the Corporation was wielding the big stick. But my main objection to the Corporation's attitude is much more fundamental and, I think, raises a constitutional question to which my hon. Friend may or may not feel able to reply this evening. B:E.A. is a public corporation set up by Parliament and was, I believe, attempting to stifle criticism by a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend will at once say that the words that were reported could be harmful to the commercial operations of B.E.A.

Other examples strike my mind. If, for example, one were to say that British Railways trains are filthy and uncomfortable or National Coal Board coal is of poor quality and bad value, or that the Gas Board carries out its repairs inefficiently or the Government's graduated pension scheme is a swindle, all these could be said to be commercially harmful to the public body involved, but if those words were said in Parliament no action could be taken if they were printed in a responsible journal. But with these public bodies there is immense difficulty in putting a Question on the Order Paper. It is only occasionally, through your tolerance, Mr. Speaker, that these can be dealt with even indirectly in a supplementary question or alternatively may be more fully dealt with in an Adjournment debate such as this.

Members of Parliament have great difficulty in raising these criticisms of a public board. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that point. I hope, also, that my hon. Friend will not try to wash his hands of the whole affair and say that we must allow complete independence to British European Airways. When Parliament creates a public body it rightly gives it a high degree of independence. Nevertheless there is, I suggest, a responsibility on the Minister of Aviation to hold the ring where Parliament is concerned and where an authority like B.E.A. is trying to ride roughshod over an important constitutional principle. These are circumstances in which the Minister of Aviation should be at his most vigilant.

There are, as I have said, inadequate means for M.Ps. of criticising and dealing with the activities of public authorities, but on top of this if we are to make responsible criticisms outside the House—not, I hope, inspired by malice—are we in addition to place any newspaper that reports them in danger of being showered with writs by B.E.A.? I can certainly visualise circumstances where a writ would be justified following criticism of a public authority. I am now, of course, talking in the abstract, but I suggest that no proceedings by B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. or any other public authority for defamation should be brought against the Press, based on the comments of a Member of Parliament, without the consent of the Minister of Aviation, and he would have the responsibility of holding the ring for Parliament. I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply and comment.

11.13 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr, Neil Marten)

I am afraid that I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend. First, I must make it quite clear that the action taken by B.E.A. against the Belfast News-Letter is a matter in which neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any responsibility or formal standing. I sympathise, because it is unsatisfactory for my hon. Friend, and it is equally unsatisfactory for me to have to give him what is virtually a second-hand answer.

B.E.A., like other nationalised industries, has autonomy in matters of day-to-day management. The decision of B.E.A. to initiate proceedings against the newspaper was taken solely by B.E.A., acting within its commercial discretion as an airline. Therefore, what I have to say is largely confined to the facts as given to me by B.E.A. My hon. Friend has outlined the course of events. I do not want to go over this again, but it started with a Question which was put down in the House on 29th July. The Answer which I gave was really one revealing that I did not know the answer but would write to my hon. Friend, who quite correctly quoted from my letter tonight. On 7th August, I wrote to him that the aircraft was conceived to allow a good deal of flexibility in seating arrangements to meet the needs of particular operators and particular routes. The design on which the first production order was based, namely, the order from B.E.A., provided for six-abreast seating.

My hon. Friend then related to the House what he was reported in the Belfast News-Letter to have said, and then arose the question of the timing of events. This, I believe, is one of the points where my hon. Friend is rather doubtful about B.E.A.'s good intentions, so I will deal with this question in detail. The article in the Belfast News-Letter was shown by B.E.A.'s Press branch to the Corporation's secretary and thereafter to the chairman, only on 6th August. I must explain the delay. Provincial papers which B.E.A. has sent in to its Press section are sent to B.E.A. through an agency on a weekly basis. Although papers are not apparently marked in, it would seem that this particular paper is likely to have arrived—though I cannot prove it either way—on or about Thursday, 1st or Friday, 2nd August. Then came a long weekend, which included the August Bank Holiday on the Monday, with the result that the article was only seen on Tuesday, 6th August, by B.E.A. staff. Parliament, it will be remembered, had risen on 2nd August.

Mr. Stratlon Mills

Surely B.E.A. has a branch office in Belfast which would read the local newspapers?

Mr. Marten

That may well be so, but it did not come to the notice of the Press section in B.E.A. headquarters until that Tuesday.

B.E.A. thereupon took action immediately against the Belfast News-Letter, There was, I understand, no question of their deliberately holding their hands, as my hon. Friend has suggested, until the Parliamentary Recess. On Wednesday, 7th August, one of the B.E.A. staff was sent over to Belfast on the 8 o'clock plane in the morning, which took, I think, just over an hour to get there. Then he went to see the B.E.A. solicitor at around 11 o'clock that same day, discussed it with him and had a conference with counsel. A letter to the newspaper's solicitors was sent off at lunch time with a tag on it marked "urgent" and it was delivered by hand. The fact that it only arrived on the desk of whoever it was at 3 o'clock is something on which I personally could not comment. I would not have knowledge of that anyhow.

The question of the urgency of this legal action by B.E.A. is one my hon. Friend has raised. This action, in B.E.A.'s view, in their commercial judgment, was necessary because on the next day, 8th August, there was to be a television programme in Northern Ireland which would touch on the question of air services. As my hon. Friend said, these services had come, in for quite a lot of criticism and B.E.A. felt, I understand, that if they did not get in quickly with this letter and this demand for an apology those allegations which had been printed in the paper might get on to television.

I think this explains what my hon. Friend called the delay. I think this explanation justifies that delay, and I think it also justifies B.E.A.'s action, or explains why B.E.A. took action when they did and in the way they did.

Mr. Stratton Mills

This, in fact, places the television programme producing company in great difficulty in preparing this kind of programme at all, and they had to be cautious and to keep as non-controversial as possible. This, again, could be shown as an attempt to prevent wide-ranging criticism. This was certainly widely felt at the time.

Mr. Marten

It may have been widely felt, but, I think, quite incorrectly. Anyhow, the solocitor's letter included a statement that both the seating arrangements and the width of the gangway have been approved as safe by the Air Registration Board and the certificate of airworthiness would not otherwise have been issued. That was the letter B.E.A.'s solicitors wrote to the newspaper.

On 13th August the News-Letter published an unqualified apology and withdrawal of the allegations regarding safety. The paper recorded the position regarding the Air Registration Board's approval for the seating. It also noted that the paper had agreed to pay B.E.A. damages and costs. B.E.A. accepted the apology and withdrew its writ on 14th August. It also accepted agreed damages, which it paid into the Corporation's benevolent fund, and costs.

My hon. Friend, as I understood him, suggested that the damages, not the costs, should be repaid to the newspaper. I am afraid that I cannot comment on that. It is entirely a question for B.E.A. itself, and no doubt it will take note of what my hon. Friend has said. My experience, limited as it is, of such matters is that newspapers, particularly old-established ones, are insured against such damages. I cannot say whether this paper was or not.

As I have indicated, it would be entirely wrong for me to become involved in arguing the merits or demerits of the proceedings between the Belfast News-Letter and B.E.A. acting with its commercial discretion as an operator. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the facts which I have given him, and on those facts I do not consider that any form of independent inquiry is justified.

But I want to make one important point. My hon. Friend implied that, in demanding an apology and damages backed up by the threat of a writ, B.E.A. was acting unreasonably and that its object in doing so was to stifle public criticism. But the article in the Belfast News-Letter reported criticisms not only of the comfort but also of the safety of the Corporation's service. I suggest that no reasonable airline operator could let pass unchallenged a public statement that his aircraft were unsafe, and if that is said an operator must feel compelled in defence of his own vital interests to force a public retraction and demand compensation.

On the subject of safety in relation to aircraft seating, I must emphasise that, whatever the seating arrangements adopted by individual operators in their aircraft, these arrangements must comply with the strict safety standards of British civil airworthiness requirements. Until the Air Registration Board is satisfied that all the conditions of British civil airworthiness requirements have been met, it will not recommend that the Ministry of Aviation should issue the aircraft certificate of airworthiness. These requirements include standards for minimum aisle width—which is the point at issue—access to emergency exits and the design, strength and installation of seats.

If my hon. Friend has any positive—I should like it to be positive—and factual evidence of which he thinks that the Air Registration Board in this country might not be aware and he will let me have details, I will certainly go into the question with the Board.

My hon. Friend mentioned Trans-Canada Airways. But they did not say that the Vanguard should not have six-abreast seating for reasons of safety. They said that their Vanguards were five-abreast for reasons of comfort. That was a matter of comfort and not of safety, and the subject of B.E.A.'s writ and the damages was safety and not comfort.

My hon. Friend suggested that the Corporation should get the Minister's approval before issuing a writ against a M.P. That surely assumes that an hon. Member has some sort of privileged position outside the House, a suggestion which seems to be an entirely new doctrine with which I personally cannot agree and which, anyhow, as my hon. Friend will agree, is not something for me to answer.

Mr. Stratton Mills

My hon. Friend is misrepresenting what I said. I was saying that that should be the position when a criticism of a public authority was expressed through an hon. Member, which is often the only way in which it can be done. Boards set up by Parliament should not be isolated from criticism.

Mr. Marten

One can do that inside the House, but outside the House hon.

Members must not expect to receive any privilege which any other person has not got. Anyhow, this is not a question for me.

My hon. Friend's final question was whether the Minister could issue a direction to the Corporation under Section 5 of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. The answer to that is that any direction under Section 5 must be one which affects the national interest and, clearly, this is not. We could discuss whether only by legislation could a Minister be empowered to give a nationalised corporation a direction such as this, and under Standing Order No. 16 we are disbarred from discussing legislation in this way in an Adjournment debate.

I understand my hon. Friend's feelings and I very much regret that I am not able to accept responsibility in what is a matter for the Corporation's commercial judgment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.