BRITISH AIRWAYS TRAVEL DIVISION

HC Deb 04 August 1976 vol 916 cc1866-81

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert (Romford)

It is an apt demonstration of the diversity of these debates that, having just plumbed the depths of the sea, we should immediately take to the air.

In addition to my parliamentary activities, I act as a travel consultant. As the activities of the British Airways Travel Division directly affect the interests of anyone engaged in the industry, it is important that I should declare that, but it is not exclusively or even primarily in that capacity that I raise this matter tonight. As a member of the travelling public and an individual taxpayer, no less than as a Member of Parliament, my interests are involved.

As a Member with the unusual qualification of having served his commercial career in the travel industry, I regard it as one of my responsibilities to pay close attention to travel matters and to alert a wider public to travel issues of which they may not be aware. Accordingly, I feel no need to apologise for the asperity of the remarks that I shall make, particularly as the Minister—for whose attendance I am grateful but for whom this is only one of several late night calls —has promised me that he will not mince his words either.

The British Airways Travel Division—or, as it is known from its initials, BATL or 'Battle"—was formed in 1973 by bringing together the passenger services of BEA and BOAC when those two bodies were merged into British Airways. It is responsible for the sale of all British Airways products in the United Kingdom, including airline seats, hotel reservations and package tours. It is also responsible for the sale of British Airways holidays, notably Sovereign and Enterprise.

It is important to understand that that is the subject of this debate, because my quarrel is not with British Airways as such as a national airline operating scheduled services nationally and internationally. Nor is the question of public ownership at issue tonight. It would be improper for me to make it so from this side of the House, since it was a Conservative Government who in 1939 nationalised the two airways which eventually became BOAC and BEA.

My concern is with that grey area between the rôle of British Airways as a national airline operating throughout the world and within the United Kingdom and its allied activities, of which the incursions of British Airways Travel Division into the retail travel trade, and particularly the inclusive holiday trade, are examples. That is the way a political argument always begins, when nationalised industries, with all the advantages they have, begin to develop outside a strictly-confined sphere of operation.

If I may make the point memorable and clear, my quarrel is not with British Airways. My battle is with BATL, and to that I shall direct my remarks.

It is a question of a nationalised industry, which unusually is not a monopoly, because even in its prime rôle as an operator of scheduled air services it is subject to competition from other international airlines and even from British airlines, including a designated scheduled carrier, British Caledonian, which operates international services, and some smaller airlines which offer regional services and some international services too.

It is a question not of whether there should be monopoly or competition but of the terms of that competition that is the subject of tonight's debate. Government control of that competition is primarily by licence. Airlines are licensed to operate on certain routes. That has been most clearly in the public eye in the question recently raised by the review of civil aviation policy guidance on designated spheres of influence for British Airways and British Caledonian. It is necessary to have such control of the activities of British Airways, but in travel and inclusive holidays there are no such sanctions. I hope therefore, that the Minister will be prepared to exercise his guidance under the Civil Aviation Act 1971 to influence policy.

It may, in this week, be an embarassment to the Minister because, as he has already acknowledged, the Skytrain judgment throws doubt on what influence he has at all in these matters. We must, however, assume that he has some influence on policy, and it is to this that I bring his attention in this debate.

Taking first inclusive holidays, it is the declared objective of British Airways Travel Division to be second in that market next year. To come from nothing to second in the market in only a few years would excite feverish attention in private industry. If it were to come about, it would be the constant preoccupation of financial and political commentators. It should be the subject of the closest scrutiny by all of us, because the rapid growth which is taking place within the all-embracing arms of a gigantic corporation clearly deserves public attention. It is in order to alert a wider public to this that I raise the matter tonight.

We can face the fact that British Airways has that objective. My conviction is that the British Airways Travel Division is now embarked on an aggresive expansionist policy on terms of competition which are not fair but are backed by British money, that this cannot be in the longer-term interest of the consumer and that it poses a threat to the independent travel industry meantime. I shall give some illustrations as evidence of this policy.

It is important to realise that the travel industry is historically divided between wholesaler and retailer; between the principal who provides the services, whether shipping or air services, on the one hand, and the retailer on the other hand; between, as it were, the tour operator and the local travel agent in the High Street.

Local travel agents provide services on commission, and that is how the travel agent makes his living. He depends on the principal. The principal needs the agent so that he does not have to be so intensive in publicity and can rely on the agent for local publicity and does not need to set up a shop with staff. The travel agent has a reduced risk, because the major risk is undertaken by the principal in investing in large capital equipment, in ships and aircraft. He can earn a modest living by selling the products provided by the principal. This is the historic background against which these new developments are taking place.

British Airways has a number of advantages as a national airline. I will list four of them. There is, first, the security of public money. Secondly, it has the beneficial side effects of wide-scale advertising. Thirdly, it has also the prestige of being a national airline. Fourthly and in more technical terms, it has access to a highly expensive and very sophisticated computer reservation system. In a business where reservations are of the essence, that is a considerable advantage in itself. These advantages are with British Airways now.

Earlier this year British Airways came forward with a proposal that remote visual display units should be placed with British Airways staff within the larger commercial organisations in the country with a large business use traffic—that is, a considerable turnover of business men travelling abroad and within the United Kingdom. This is very attractive and lucrative business for travel agents who specialise in the work. To a small travel agent in the High Street, one large account can mean the difference between flourishing and collapsing.

This proposal naturally raised an outcry, because it meant that British Airways were cutting across the historic relationship which had existedqua the travel agent. It was not only that they were endeavouring to corner the market. I would not quarrel with the determination of British Airways to corner the market. Let me say for the record that I would seek to encourage and welcome British Airways, since they bring profit and prestige to the United Kingdom in their role as a national carrier. In that regard everybody would have cause for satisfaction. I am concerned only with their related activities, which go beyond the prime purpose for which British Airways were created.

As result of the outcry amongst agents who could see their livelihood being jeopardised by the installation of the remote terminals as against real time computing in large companies, British Airways backed down. One was installed, against the muted protests of the agent who had held the account. No doubt in the fullness of time others will be proposed. It is significant that by this move British Airways Travel Division was prepared to go beyond its local sales agents business.

More seriously and more significantly, in recent months British Airways Travel Division has started opening travel shops in most of the prime site positions in several very attractive shopping centres in the South-East. It already has by tradidition six or seven such travel shops in the centre of London. Nobody would question this. It is only reasonable that a national airline should have in the heart of the capital city a number of its own travel shops selling services, particularly to foreign visitors and tourists.

However, British Airways have already established travel shops in Romford, Watford, Wembley and Bromley. My connection with at least two of those towns will not have escaped the Minister's notice. There are proposals at least for Bromley and Kingston upon Thames.

At Bromley the shop is not established. The House will forgive me for correcting myself in that respect. The Bromley shop is a proposal. There are rumours about Enfield, Guildford and Lewisham. So it goes on—the setting up of travel shops in prime site positions in expensive High Streets in towns which are serviced by half a dozen travel agents already.

What is the purpose of that major expansion? Whatever its purpose, its effect will be to take business which is at present funnelled through local travel agents and from which they earn commission and transfer it to the British Airways travel shops. British Airways claim that wherever they open one of the shops it brings new business and that no agent will suffer. I and the travel agents find that hard to swallow. Clearly, a principal source of revenue will come from the travel agents.

I take one example, the Bromley proposal. Although there is little informed information available, it is clear that British Airways cannot possibly make such a shop pay. They will have to pay an annual rent of about £15,000 a year. Staff costs—if they employ six or seven qualified staff—will amount to £20,000 to £30,000 a year. If one adds to that high rates, the cost of publicity, insurance and services, the total cost could be as much as £1,000 a week. The revenue earned will be that which would have come to them from the travel agents, and the only extra revenue will be a saving of what they would otherwise pay in commission to agents. That commission amounts to 4½ per cent. for domestic business, 8 per cent. for international business and perhaps 11 per cent. for special group arrangements.

The shops cannot pay. British Airways are opening up loss-making travel shops and in the process undermining local travel agents. That is bad enough in itself, but the local travel agents are the historic sales agents for British Airways and in many cases they are also IATA sales agents.

The rub is—and it is more sinister—that IATA confers licences on travel agents which enable them to earn their commission. British Airways are the principal sponsors of British travel agents and they can, therefore, exert pressure in two ways. They can cream off the profitable business from the agents, and if, as a result, the agent's turnover slumps below a certain level his licence is threatened. Lest anyone should regard that as an idle threat, the House should remember that 26 agents have recently lost their IATA licences.

In the travel Press last week, a thumbnail report said that British Airways had purchased an undisclosed number of shares in the Martin Rooks firm which successfully operates charter air holidays by means of direct selling. The company deals directly with the public, employs no agents and therefore, since it pays no commission, receives 100 per cent. of its sales price. My information is that British Airways have acquired 49 per cent. of that company with a commitment to acquire 100 per cent. within two years and that for this they have paid £750,000. One is entitled to ask on behalf of the public where this development capital is coming from.

The acquisition of lucrative High Street sites with travel shops is one aspect of the expansion. This is another. It is a particularly lucrative business because it does not pay commission. The carryings of that tour operator, which are spread between four airlines—British Caledonian, DanAir, Britannia Airways and British Airways—will presumably now be cornered by British Airways alone. It has extended its share of the market by these aggressive tactics and with the provision of public money in large measure.

It is also significant that there is apparently to be no change in policy of direct selling. Once again British Airways are going against the interests of their local sales agents, because they propose to continue selling direct to the public, paying no commission. Incidentally, on their holidays—Sovereign and Enterprise—they pay the flat 10 per cent. which is standard.

The expansion in the retail travel trade has understandably caused great alarm among agents. There is also concern on the wholesaling side among the tour operators. Sovereign and Enterprise have quickly become a remarkable force in the market. This may be some tribute to the excellence and efficiency of the arrangements. It may also be some recognition of the powerful commercial forces which British Airways Travel Division, as part of this nationalised industry, has at its command.

There is a particular loss-making venture to which I wish to draw attention, because it is unfair competition which cannot be withstood by any commercial company. If we are concerned to strike a proper balance between public and private industry, this should concern us most. Last September the Travel Division offered a no-surcharge guarantee to those who booked their Sovereign-Enterprise holidays by 16th January. Since then the value of the pound against the dollar has declined by 30 cents. That currency has great relevance to air operations, because it is the currency in which air fuel is purchased, sales are negotiated and fares are calculated.

After a year in which British Airways lost £9.4 million—I do not blame them for that; it was very creditable when many other airlines lost much more—they were able to make a declaration of inflation-proof holiday prices until September this year, in a way that could not be construed as fair competition. I said earlier in the year that in acting like that they were emulating Clarksons, which in recent memory adopted the same aggressive tactics, using unprofitable loss-leader ventures to expand its share of the market, but which eventually crashed in ruins.

At least Clarksons was funded by private money. British Airways are using public money. As with Clarksons, the rest of the industry was forced to follow suit, against its better judgment and often beyond its resources. Only today it is revealed in theFinancial Times that British and Commonwealth Shipping has abandoned Castle Holidays. That is particularly relevant to what I have said, because it was Castle Holidays which, after the British Airways Travel Division announcement, was forced to make a similar announcement, even though it had gone to press with its prices and presumably had not allowed for that in its budgeting.

To guarantee prices in a year in which inflation has been raging at only an abated rate after a year in which it ran at 26 per cent. is surely to indulge in irresponsibility in commercial terms of a kind of which a normal company would not be capable. In these ways, British Airways are expanding their share of the market and making no bones about it.

My purpose tonight is to call on the Minister to constrain the airline in these spheres of its activities. That is not to challenge its proper rôle as a national airline. It is simply to limit it in its expansionist policy on which it has embarked and for which, presumably, public money is being made available, even though public expansion in so many other ways is being cut back. My right hon. and hon. Friends should also pay the closest attention, together with the Civil Aviation Authority, to Section 38 of the Civil Aviation Act of 1971. It cannot have been the intention of the last Conservative Administration, having denationalised Thomas Cook, which was a threat to no one—it was known in the trade as the "sleeping giant"—to allow a much more formidable threat to develop so rapidly within the ambit of British Airways. If a balance is not struck between public industry on the one hand and private industry on the other, the livelihoods of a great many people engaged in the free enterprise industry will be at stake and may be lost.

My prediction is that, if British Airways Travel Division is not curbed in its present policy, before long many retail travel shops will go out of business. Already they earn only a moderate livelihood. Their profitability is precarious and they cannot compete on these terms if they are not backed by one of their principal sponsors to which they look for so much of their business. They would be followed, perhaps at less frequent intervals, by the collapse of several tour operators who, again, could not complete and who are already under pressure as a result of stringent levels of bonding and advance payments of insurance levy. They would not be able to compete. We have seen one going out of business and merging with another tour operator only today.

The danger is real. If that happens and if British Airways Travel Division secures a dominant position in the market —and who can imagine that, having come second in the travel olympics, it will hesitaet to go for gold—with a monopoly or near-monopoly holding, there will be the same dreary nationalised pattern of public ownership emerging, as was confirmed by the National Consumer Council's report published yesterday. Reduced choice, uncontrolled costs, raising prices and general apathy and poor service will be the lot of the consumer. If that comes about, it will surely not be in the interests of the travelling public or the taxpayer.

11.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) said at the begininng of his speech that he would have some rather tough things to say. At least we are able to agree about one thing, which he said in parenthesis during his remarks, namely, that he thought—and I share his belief—that the Government should be able to have an influence over major matters of aviation policy. I was delighted to hear him say that. I hope that in that respect at least he was speaking for the Opposition.

The hon. Member considers that it is a heinous offence for British Airways travel shops to be in competition with other travel agents. He enlarged upon that belief at some considerable length. It is my contention that British Airways travel shops are an integral part of the success story of British Airways. The mere fact that British Airways are a nationalised concern does not mean—the hon. Gentleman conceded this—that they should not be competitive. Indeed, they live in a competitive world. Their main business is to provide scheduled air services. In this they have to work to maintain or increase their share against competition provided by over 70 scheduled airlines operating in and from the United Kingdom, quite apart from the competition which they face in other spheres such as coach and rail travel and cross-Channel ferries.

Because of the growth of charter traffic and package holidays, British Airways are also in business as a tour operator, and in that respect they are in competition with other tour operators. They have a number of travel shops as one method of selling their wares.

British Airways are by no means a monopoly. They are, as I have already indicated, highly competitive. Indeed, in that respect they have been praised by the hon. Gentleman. There is no reason to make any apology on behalf of anybody for that fact. As shareholders of British Airways, we ought to applaud the fact that they are going out to get the business instead of adopting, in this respect at least, the somewhat narrow, carping and cantankerous approach, as represented by the hon. Gentleman in his speech.

The question of how many travel shops British Airways should have, and where they should be located, is entirely for the commercial judgment of British Airways and is not one on which the Government should intervene. I do not think it is the job of the Government to run the business of British Airways, and that has always been the view expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to question British Airways' policy in this matter, he should take it up directly with British Airways. Indeed, I understand that Mr. Draper, the Director of British Airways Travel Division, has offered to discuss the whole matter with the hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman chose to reject the offer on the grounds that he was too busy. I have no doubt that he is a very busy Member—not too busy to argue the toss, but simply too busy to investigate the evidence. Steadfastly he applies the doctrine "Do not confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up."

Mr. Neubert

It is precisely because, over a matter of months, I have been unable to obtain a single specific cold, hard fact from Mr. Draper that I have not found time to discuss even more generalities with him.

Mr. Davis

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Mr. Draper has offered the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of a lunch at which he can discuss these matters. This does not, of course, include matters which are strictly confidential. He cannot expect that, because he is in the trade himself. Concerning certain basic facts, however, Mr. Draper offered to discuss these with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman deprived himself of that opportunity. I find that quite extraordinary.

However, the hon. Gentleman has alleged that the competition is in some way unfair. I think we ought to examine that allegation. If he wants to take the term literally, there is legislation on the kind of trade practices that are fair or unfair. There is the Office of Fair Trading, which looks into these matters conscientiously and fairly and, where necessary, takes steps to enforce the law. If the hon. Gentleman feels that the matter falls into that category—and I rather gathered from some of his remarks that that is his view—that is the avenue that ought to be explored. I shall say no more about that, because it is not for me to prejudge a verdict of the Office of Fair Trading.

In substance, however, the hon. Gentleman's complaint is really not along those lines. The real complaint is that British Airways are big and are in a position—I do not think that the hon. Member actually said this, but it has been the complaint made from other sources—because of their big capacity, to cross-subsidise these retail activities from their other earnings in other parts of their business.

I understand that British Airways dispute that allegation. They contend that their retail business in the United Kingdom is profitable by the usual commercial yardstick. They contend that each branch is also profitable in its own right, except that naturally, as is common business experience, shops which have been opened recently take time to establish themselves. That is a practice in ordinary commercial private enterprise. British Airways notionally credit each travel shop with the commission which a travel agent would receive, and its profitability is assessed on that basis.

The hon. Gentleman alleged that British Airways had engaged in this expansion deliberately and wilfully to damage the interests of travel agents. That is a serious allegation. But I must point that they now operate the same number of shops as they operated when the BEA and BOAC shops were merged. Some have closed and others have opened.

If it were true that the establishment of British Airways travel shops was taking business away from travel agents, it is inevitable that they would see the proportion of their direct sales increase and the proportion of sales through travel agents decline. In fact, that is not the evidence at all. There has not been any reduction in the share of British Airways' total United Kingdom business generated through travel agents over the last two years. That fact has not been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Of course, he has this personal vendetta with British Airways in this regard. I assume that the hon. Gentleman must be seeking to stimulate trouble where it does not exist. That is not a very good thing to do.

If a travel agent in the High Street feels that there is a threat of a new British Airways travel shop opening a few doors away and that that is likely to affect his interests, I sympathise. But, whatever is the national average, he may feel, particularly if he reads the hon. Gentleman's speech, that he may feel the draught. Therefore, we should look at the evidence in that regard as well. British Airways are not unaware of these anxieties on the part of the travel agents, who, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, have an interest conjointly with British Airways.

What British Airways did, have done throughout and will continue to do was to make careful records when they opened their shop in Croydon. I specify Croydon because that was one of the shops illustrated by the hon. Gentleman. The opening of that shop was accompanied by a substantial local publicity drive. The effect was to increase the total market. The figures showed that the total sales in the Croydon area increased by more than the amount sold in the British Airways shop. Some people came in and collected a leaflet and then booked through their own local trusted traved agent. This evidence was presented to the ABTA Retail Agents Council, which accepted it after scrutiny. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the credibility of the consideration of this matter by ABTA. That is up to him. The House will have to make up its mind as to which evidence it prefers.

The fact is that the hon. Gentleman, like others in the Conservative Party, is highly selective in his condemnation, because he complains bitterly at the top of his voice about British Airways travel shops but does not produce a whisper of protest about other private enterprise carriers who maintain a retail chain operating under not dissimilar trading conditions. Indeed, one could apply virtually all the hon. Gentleman's yardsticks to those organisations.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I think that I should advise the House of the true facts relating to this matter. All the main international airlines have shops in our major cities, as well as having retail shops abroad. There was not a whisper about that from the hon. Gentleman. Britannia, the holders of the gold medal, according to the hon. Gentleman—and that is a Thomson private enterprise outfit—has a bigger chain of shops than have British Airways, and it has recently announced that it will open another 30 to 40 shops. It, too, operates in the High Streets, but I did not detect a note of criticism in the long harangue from the hon. Gentleman about the operations of those holding the gold medallion —not one word.

Mr. Neubert

As the Minister has gathered around him some support, perhaps I might make the point I endeavoured to make throughout my speech, namely, that those people are risking their own money in acquiring this business. What is being done by British Airways is to acquire business with public money. That is the distinction I was trying to make.

Mr. Davis

The truth of the matter is that, when it comes to a question of competition, the hon. Gentleman does not want British Airways to compete.

Other airlines having retail outlets are British Caledonian, Laker, and British Island Airways, which is part of the Union Castle group, and there has not been a whisper about them. All this is consonant with normal commercial practice. It may be—I am prepared to concede to the hon. Gentleman—that he is simply unworldly about these matters, or perhaps he seeks to ignore these facts for the purpose of advancing a politically sterile philosophy. The House will have to judge what position he occupies.

Frequently, manufacturing industry uses its own retail outlets to promote its own products. ICI does that. The petroleum companies do it. They have captive users or own petrol stations. Brewers do it with their tied houses. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong. What I am saying is that these are the facts of life in this rough, tough capitalist world which the hon. Gentleman and his party seek to promote.

Mr. Norman Tebbit (Chingford)

rose—

Mr. Davis

The hon. Gentleman was not here and did not have the advantage of listening to his hon. Friend.

Mr. Max Madden (Sowerby)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to leap into the attack in this way, having missed the bulk of the speech of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert)? It would appear not to be in order for the hon. Gentleman to intervene in this way.

Mr. Speaker

. It is in order. It is done from both sides of the House from time to time.

Mr. Tebbit

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should rather leave you to be the judge of what is in order.

I do not want to leap into the attack on this matter. I think the Minister will concede that many of us rejoice in the fact that British Airways are as toughly competitive as they are, but he should give a little more weight to the worries of my hon. Friend, which centre around the fairness of competition where one competitor is risking his own money and the other is risking State money, and where it is not always possible for us to be clear on the extent of cross-subsidisation and when loss-leading that is legitimate becomes unfair. I think that the hon. Gentleman would want to be fair in that regard.

Mr. Davis

Of course I want to be fair. I am one of the fairest people in the House. Nobody can accuse me of being other than that. The hon. Gentleman should not get worried when arguments that need to be refuted are refuted. His hon. Friend is capable of taking care of himself. He is now an experienced Member of the House and does very well. He articulates his point extremely well.

The hon. Gentleman talks about applying the criteria of fairness, public money, and so on. This applies equally when British Airways are in competition with other private enterprise carriers. Is he suggesting, therefore, that British Airways should contract out of that competition because it is in some way unfair?

The hon. Member for Romford proclaimed that British Airways should not follow the oft-practised procedures followed in other respects in industry. He proclaimed that they should not try to match the competition, that they should not compete and that they should contract out. If, in consequence of this, British Airways fall behind, the hon. Member will then complain about the stodginess, stuffiness and lack of enterprise of this nationalised undertaking. British Airways may lose money, but the Tory Party dogma will be preserved. On no account can British Airways win that sterile argument.

If, in taking vigorous action to sell seats in their aircraft—which is surely what we as shareholders want to see—British Airways take some business away from travel agents by the ordinary operation of the competitive market, I see nothing wrong in that. But all the evidence shows that this is not the case. Many other airlines as well as British Airways have their own retail outlets.

I find it refreshing that a nationalised industry is being accused—perhaps for the first time—by the Opposition not of being a lazy and inefficient monopoly but of being too competitive, too robust and too vigorous in the pursuit of its sales policy in an attempt to run an efficient and competitive business in a highly competitive world. I am glad that we as a Government are associated with such an enterprise. We all wish British Airways to be efficient and profitable.

The hon. Member talked about the no-surcharge guarantee by Sovereign and Enterprise. He said, in effect, that this guarantee of no surcharge on package holidays this season was in some way unfair. He suggested that the guarantee must have been subsidised from the rest of their business. I am advised that this is not the case. The guarantee has proved attractive to customers and has proved to be a commercial success. It did not involve any loss being borne by the rest of the business.

The hon. Member referred to the acquisition of Martin Rooks and Co. Ltd. This is a very good illustration of what the argument is about. Martin Rooks is a very small tour operator who quotes low prices by advertising only through direct mailing to past clients, thus avoiding the travel agents' commission. The owner is selling the business because he wants to retire. Nearly all the business of this company is British Airways business. If the business should be acquired by a competitor, British Airways would lose all the traffic. By the hon. Member's standards that is OK, but not by ours.

British Airways proposed, quite rightly, to buy the business and sought departmental consent. After investigation of the terms of the deal was undertaken by the Department, we considered that there was absolutely no reason in the world why consent should be refused. It has now been given. There is no reason at all, not a tittle of evidence, to suggest that British Airways will subsidise this business. That is not their practice. The business has been very successful up to now as a private firm without any subsidies. I see no reason why this should cease to be the case.

The hon. Member concluded his speech by asserting that British Airways would somehow monopolise the whole of this aspect of the travel business. He implied that this was their singularly unpleasant ambition. That is not the case. However, the corporation is living in a highly competitive world. It is right that it should seek to preserve and maintain its interests, and I believe that there has not been any argument by the hon. Gentleman to refute that British Airways have conducted their business honourably and fairly and that, far from disadvantaging private travel agents, they will in the end enhance their interests.