HL Deb 26 July 1949 vol 164 cc524-33

4.8 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pakenham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Accounts, etc.

4.—(1) In respect of the financial year ending with the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty, and any subsequent financial year beginning before the appointed day—

  1. (a) the statement of accounts prepared by the British Overseas Airways Corporation under section twenty-one of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, may extend to the accounts of the British South American Airways Corporation, and in that case no such statement shall he prepared or sent to the Minister under that section by the British South American Airways Corporation; and
  2. (b) the report made to the Minister by the British Overseas Airways Corporation under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the said Act may extend to the operations of the British South American Airways Corporation, and in that case no report shall be made under that subsection by the British South American Airways Corporation.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved to add to subsection (1): Provided that where the operations of the British Overseas Airways Corporation extend to areas in which, prior to the passing of this Act, air transport operations were carried out by the British South American Airways Corporation then the said statement of accounts and report shall, so far as is practicable, show separately the operating costs and financial results of the provision of air transport facilities in such areas, and the information herein-before required shall continue to be furnished by the British Overseas Airways Corporation in respect of such areas after the dissolution of the British South American Airways Corporation.

The noble Viscount said: When this Bill was before Standing Committee in another place some of my right honourable friends were very much concerned that in the future, as in the past, it should be possible to distinguish the operational results of the British South American Airways Corporation; that is to say, that it should be possible in future, if this Bill becomes law, to be able to segregate the operational results of those groups which are now going to be taken over by B.O.A.C. from B.S.A.A. As I understand the position, the Minister in charge of the Bill in Standing Committee in another place gave an assurance that, so far as information was available and desirable, it would be given, subject only to a qualification which I took to mean that we should not expect information to be given to Parliament if similar information would not be given in a private enterprise concern under business conditions. With that in mind, this Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has been put down.

Your Lordships will see that this Amendment asks that in the statement of accounts and reports of the B.O.A.C. the air transport operations in the areas previously served by B.S.A.A. shall, so far as practicable, be shown separately in regard to operating costs and financial results. There are one or two points about that. The first is that this Amendment is quite consistent with Section 21 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946. Subsection (2), which dealt with the operations of a subsidiary, does not apply in this case. I think it will be found that there is nothing in that section which rules out the Government doing what is suggested in this Amendment. There are only two questions which arise on this Amendment. The first is: Is it a business proposition for such information to be kept and such statistics to be recorded? Secondly: Is it desirable to publish them? I want to take those two questions in the order in which I have given them. I do lot think anybody could possibly contend that it was not practicable, as a business proposition, to keep statistics of this sort. I have not had the privilege of seeing the modern card-punching systems of B.O.A.C. or B.S.A.A., but I had an opportunity before the war of seeing the system of K.L.M. Anybody who has the slightest knowledge of those systems knoms that it is not only possible, but absolutely necessary, in the interests of proper business, that the accounts of the different routes should be segregated by the various mechanical devices in such a way that they are produced externally in the office and can be produced externally if it becomes necessary and desirable to produce them.

My next point is: Is it desirable to publish them? Our Amendment uses the words "so far as is practicable." It may or may not be practicable to publish in detail the operating results of the South American section of B.O.A.C. It depends very much on what are the results to be anticipated in competition at the time when it is thought necessary to publish them. But my point is t hat if steps are not taken to keep these records in the proper way, it will be impossible for Parliament to ask for their publication. If, on the other hand, the first step is taken, and the accounts are kept and the information is available internally, then it is always possible to produce those accounts in so far as it is in the best interests of all concerned to produce them. This Amendment was drafted in such a way as to write into the Bill the undertaking given in another place by the Minister concerned. We think the Amendment is a wise one. We do not think that it conflicts with the obvious need not to publish figures which might benefit our competitors more than they benefit our own Airways Corporation. We consider it would be an improvement to the Bill, and I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)

LORD PAKENHAM

I sympathise a good deal with the argument of the noble Viscount, and with the intention which is clearly behind this Amendment. I am afraid that I shall have to ask him to withdraw it, and I hope that he will feel able to do so, having served a useful purpose in extracting from me a satisfactory assurance. I have been rather careful to discuss this matter with the chairman of B.O.A.C., and arrive at a binding form of words which will no doubt be carefully considered in years to come. The published accounts of B.O.A.C., which give more information than is normal by commercial standards, already show the operating revenue and expenditure analysed, under suitable headings, separately for each division of the Corporation—that is, of B.O.A.C. as it is now. It will, of course, be necessary to make some change in the present form of this analysis under divisions to conform to any change in the organisation of the Corporation. I can assure the Committee that it is my intention—in which the chairman himself concurs—to see that the published accounts continue to be fully informative, provided, of course, that they do not divulge information which would be harmful to the Corporation in their competition with other airlines.

I think that sums up my reply pretty clearly, but I would add just two points. I do not think there is any difference between the interpretation which the noble Viscount put upon what the Parliamentary Secretary said, and what I am saying now. There is certainly no dif- ference between what I am saying now and what the Parliamentary Secretary said. But I would ask the noble Viscount to accept this form of words rather than his own. The noble Viscount said that the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary implied that all the information would be given by B.O.A.C. that was given by a commercial company—or words to that effect. We should not be governed by what some particular commercial company does; we should be governed by the test of whether divulging the information is, in our view and in the view of the Corporation, harmful. I would not like to mislead the noble Viscount into thinking that I had accepted his precise interpretation, although I think in practice it is a distinction without a difference.

The only other point is the fact which was brought out in another place, that we do not intend that the present geographical structure, with its geographical divisions, should be permanent. We intend to move on a little later to an organisation under which there is a devolution to lines on the one hand, and to areas on the other. Therefore, while we intend to give just as full information—subject to this point which might operate in some unforeseen way—we cannot hind ourselves to giving the information by divisions as they are now constituted, because divisions of that character will not exist in the future. I hope the noble Viscount feels that we are out to meet his point. I quite agree that it is right to encourage emulation between the different lines, areas or whatever they might be called at the moment, and I also agree strongly with what I think is in his mind —that the public, both critical and friendly, should have sufficient information to form a judgment as to what is going on. That is most important. Whatever people may say about our airlines —and as the Committee know, I think they are pretty good—I do not think anybody has criticised us hitherto for not giving enough information. I can assure the Committee that, while I accept the intention behind the Amendment, I am convinced that the purpose can be served by an assurance of the kind I have given.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I think the Minister has given the Committee an assurance which is acceptable. He has given it not only in words, but in the spirit in which those words were expressed. As he said, whether we approve of this particular Bill or whether we disapprove, we all want to be able to see the results and the effects of operations under the Bill, to make comparisons with what we think could be achieved in relation to what has been achieved and, perhaps, comparisons as to what might have been achieved had this Bill not been introduced. I think it has been well worth my noble friend's while to move this Amendment, because of the words which we have extracted from the Minister. I think the Minister spoke of the intention of the Government, and I should like to remind him of a Parliamentary gem that came from a Member in another place, to which I am sure the Government does not subscribe any more than we do. These words were uttered by one of the noble Lord's own supporters in Standing Committee: The business of the Committee and the Government is to find a way of meeting the intention without incurring the disadvantage involved in carrying it out. I think that is a gem. It is because we want to avoid any sort of possibility of a repetition of that sort of "sloppy" expression that I am glad that the Minister has been so clear and definite in his words to-day. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

4.22 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE moved, after Clause 5 to insert the following new clause:

Machinery for settling conditions of employment, etc.

" . An order of the Minister of Civil Aviation under subsection (4) of Section one of this Act shall provide that consultation in regard to any proposed discharge or transfer of officers or servants shall take place between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and such organisations as at the date of the said order represented any substantial number of such officers or servants."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause as set out on the Order Paper. It deals with the machinery for settling conditions of employment, and proposes that if the Minister makes an order under subsection (4) of Clause 1 that order shall provide that consulta- tion in regard to any proposed discharges of officers or servants shall take place between B.0.A.C. and such organisations as at that time represent any substantial number of such officers or servants. I would agree at once that it does not look as if redundancy will be any great problem arising out of this amalgamation. We hope that civil aviation will expand and that, far from redundancy, there will be opportunities for new entrants. Nevertheless, there may be some redundancy here and there, through the welding together of these two bodies, and where there is any such redundancy we feel that it should not be decided by any discrimination as to membership or non-membership of any particular union.

There is behind this Amendment a rather unhappy story. I will not elaborate it this afternoon, but your Lordships can read it in the Report of the proceedings in another place. It is the unhappy history of the Aeronautical Engineers' Association, which is a union outside the National Joint Council for Civil Aviation. It has applied for membership of that Council, and the application has been refused. Quite frankly, my Lords, I am not going to press this Amendment. What I want from the noble Lord opposite is an assurance that the Corporations are not closed shops, and that in the treatment of any man no notice will be taken of the fact of whether he was a member of any particular union. The A.E.A. has had, and still has, I believe, a substantial number of members. At one time the engineers in the two Corporations numbered some 5,000 the A.E.A. membership was 2,500. It is a responsible body but in another place was labelled a "goose club," by the Parliamentary Secretary. It is true that he afterwards said he had no intention of disparaging the union, but it is not a pretty expression to use of men who got together originally to protect their ex-Service interests and now seek to protect their technical interests. I hope the Minister will be able to say that, if there is consultation as regards any redundancy, it will not be carried out in any manner which is associated with the union to which men may or may not belong. I trust that the Corporation will feel themselves free to consult anybody, whether it be the National Joint Council or any individual union—the A.E.U. or the A.E.A.—in their consideration of particular cases. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 5, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Balfour of Inchrye.)

LORD PAKENHAM

I am grateful once again to the noble Lord, the representative of the Opposition, for the moderate way in which he has put his case and for saying that he will not press the Amendment. I agree that here is an unhappy and complicated story. As a matter of fact, I think the noble Lord, even if he was thinking of the past, rather exaggerated—quite unwittingly—the proportion of employees of the Corporation in the A.E.A. I will not take up your Lordships' time for very long, but I would remind the House that in the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, Section 19, there is a duty laid on each of the three Corporations, with the qualifications mentioned, to seek consultation with any organisation appearing to the Corporation to be appropriate, so that they may, among other things, settle by negotiation terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the Corporation. This, I am advised, includes redundancy. There is, then, an obligation falling on the Corporation to consult with proper organisations as to redundancy. Indeed, this obligation, has been fulfilled hitherto, and since the merger was foreshadowed we have already publicly announced more than once that we shall adopt the machinery of consultation with appropriate bodies.

I would say, in parentheses, that what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye said is quite right: that the amount of redundancy arising from the merger is expected to be very small indeed. The only question, therefore, is, which are the proper bodies to consult? That is the only issue this afternoon; and, as the noble Lord is aware, elaborate and, I think I may say, very successful machinery has been established under the name of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport. It is a machine which is accepted both by the employers—and I am thinking not only of the Corporations but also of the charter companies—and by the trade unions. The A.E.A., not being eligible for admission to the T.U.C., are not accepted as part of the National Joint Council machinery; and therefore I am afraid it is impossible to consult them for such purposes as those suggested without violating the rules and principles of the National Joint Council machinery. We cannot, I fear, bring them into consultation as regards redundancy.

I can, however, give the noble Lord an absolute assurance that individual members of the A.E.A. will be treated in the matter of redundancy on a precisely equal footing with members of the staff of the Corporation who are not members of the A.E.A. There will be no discrimination whatever, either in theory or in fact.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, I should like to be clear about the machinery. Suppose that a man who is a member of the A.E.A. has himself representations to make about his redundancy. I understand that that man's case would be considered by the National Joint Council, that the man would be able to make representations direct, either to the management or to the National Joint Council, and that he would not have to go to a union through an official of a union to which he did not belong and of which for his own private reasons he might not approve.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, he would in practice appear before a local joint panel and he would have direct access himself. He would be able to argue his own case. Therefore, while we cannot accept consultation with the A.E.A. we can give this assurance: that no individual member of the A.E.A. has any reason to suppose he will suffer, in respect of redundancy or any other conditions, as opposed to those who are not members of the A.E.A. I hope that that assurance will satisfy the noble Lord. Those are the last words I wish to speak on the subject. I myself look forward to the time when all these difficulties and differences are forgotten, and to a very bright future for the new amalgamated Corporation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.