CHANGES IN B.O.A.C.

HL Deb 15 May 1956 vol 197 cc405-51

5.9 p.m.

LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to recent changes in the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we on this side of the House are disturbed at some of the recent happenings in B.O.A.C., and. I think I can say with justice that it is not only noble Lords on this side of the House who are proud of B.O.A.C.: that feeling of pride is shared by noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House. We are all eager for its prosperity, and we are all anxious that nothing whatsoever shall impair its success. But the recent changes—and, I think, even mere the events which preceded the changes—have disturbed the public mind. In our view, they make a Parliamentary debate essential.

What are the changes? In the first place, there are the resignations from the old Board in recent months of the Chairman, Sir Miles Thomas, the Deputy Chairman, Mr. Whitney Straight, the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who resigned but has since been reappointed, and the noble Lord, Lord Burghley, the Chairman of the Board's Technical Committee, who has resigned or at any rate has not been reappointed. The new appointments have been the Chairman, Mr. Gerard d'Erlanger, the Deputy Chairman, Sir George Cribbett, and the Managing Director, Mr. Basil Smallpiece. The old team, if I may call it so—that is, the old Board of B.O.A.C. and the top officials—saw a steady advance in the progress of B.O.A.C., maintaining its traffic in the face of fierce international competition and turning a heavy deficit into a modest profit; and this in spite of the severe blow sustained by the withdrawal of the Comet aircraft from service early in April, 1954 This disaster meant a loss in carrying capacity and in profit and it also required a complete improvisation so as to provide for replacements in the near future. It was, moreover, a severe psychological blow to Sir Miles Thomas himself, who had done so much to make the Comet known throughout the world.

However, the team rallied swiftly and new plans were made and carried out. I think we should not allow this occasion to pass without puling on record the fact that, during Sir Miles Thomas's eight years as Chairman, the revenue increased from £14 million to £42 million a year, and during that period a loss of £8 million a year became a profit of £1¾ million. B.O.A.C. have now on order nineteen Comets and thirty-three Britannias, as well as American aircraft. The old team was a successful one, as these figures show, and the team gives a hint as to what is required in this industry. I would say that the top men in B.O.A.C. have a vital task to perform. They can make or they can break this great airline in which so many of our hopes are engaged and so much of our money is sunk. They can profoundly affect the future of British civil aviation and the British civil aircraft industry.

What qualities, then, should they have and what type of men should we engage to provide the necessary direction? I would say that the men required—at all events, the top men—on the Board of B.O.A.C. must be men of vision, vision allied to a keen commercial sense founded on experience of airline work. Their eyes may be on the stars but their thoughts and hopes must also be on the ticket office. The job of B.O.A.C. is a highly competitive one. Its job is to carry the maximum number of passengers and goods swiftly, regularly, safely and punctually at competitive prices and at a profit. I constantly stress the word "competitive" because, although fares are not competitive—there are international agreements on most of the great services—yet the competition between the airlines themselves as to who shall carry passengers and goods over a particular area is keen. There are airlines all over the world, some of them subsidised by their Governments, all engaging in this particular market.

The team has to plan years ahead but also to see that to-day's paying customer is satisfied. When I first flew a great deal just after the war, it struck me then that the people who flew in air liners all had a somewhat sinister look. Maybe they thought the same about me. It was rather the "mink and champagne" customer in those days; but it is not so to-day. Today, one has to think the whole time of the ordinary passenger who wants and expects not only to get to the end of his journey but also to get there more or less at the time that he expects to. The men at the top, therefore, must have a keen business sense and a first-rate knowledge of air transportation. To fill this bill, Mr. Watkinson, the Minister, has appointed the gentlemen whom I have mentioned. May I say here and now that I do not want in any way to attack these gentlemen on personal grounds at all. Any comments or criticisms that I make are devoted simply to their capacity or their suitability for these particular posts, not to their suitability as businessmen, civil servants or accountants in some other line of business. The point I am making is that they are an odd team to choose to run a great airline such as B.O.A.C. in a highly competitive market.

First of all, let us take the Chairman, Mr. d'Erlanger. I have never had the pleasure, so far as I recall, of meeting Mr. d'Erlanger, but until 1949 he was Chairman of British European Airways. Previous to that he had served at one time as a member of B.O.A.C. and he then rather made himself—shall I say? —remarked upon by being the only Director who did not resign as a protest in 1943 against the treatment of the Corporation by the Air Ministry. Under Mr. d'Erlanger's chairmanship, heavy losses were sustained by B.E.A. In fact, it was calculated—perhaps somewhat unfairly, but it was calculated—that B.E.A. lost £7 on every passenger they carried. In 1947 the then Minister, my noble friend Lord Pakenham, so his Parliamentary Secretary said in another place on March 1, 1949, decided not to reappoint Mr. d'Erlanger as he felt that a change would be to the benefit of the development of B.E.A. and of civil aviation generally. He was succeeded by my noble and gallant friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside who, assisted by Mr. Peter Masefield, has made such a success of B.E.A.

Mr. d'Erlanger will be a part-time Chairman. He will receive no salary at all but he will receive, or does receive, an expense allowance. It has been said that this will be in the neighbourhood of £2,000.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

May I correct the noble Lord straight away? It is to be the same as before. From the official records, I understand that he receives £1,000.

LORD OGMORE

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that correction. I am always grateful to be corrected and to have one fact substantiated in this picture: that is, that Mr. d'Erlanger will receive an expense allowance of £1,000, but presumably still no salary. Mr. d'Erlanger is to concentrate on policy, long-range planning and overall financial control. The Deputy-Chairman, Sir George Cribbett, is a civil servant, a former Deputy-Secretary in the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. I know Sir George very well. He served under me and I know him as a capable, far-sighted civil servant. In the Ministry he was a loyal civil servant; and for the way he served me, and I am sure for the way he served my noble friend, we have nothing but praise. Sir George will deputise for the Chairman in the latter's absence and advise him on policy, planning and financial control. He will relieve the Chairman of detail duties. He will deputise for the Chairman in liaison with Government Departments, supervision of the Corporation's interests in associated companies, and liaison with British independent air companies. I understand that he is to receive £5,000 a year.

Mr. Basil Smallpiece, the Managing Director, is an accountant. He has been appointed by the Board to be, I suppose, General Manager; but he is also a Director, so presumably he must have been appointed by the Minister to the Board. He will be responsible to the Chairman and the Board for the efficiency, safety and economy of the Corporation's current operations. He will have complete executive authority over operating, engineering, commercial, traffic, personnel and accounting activities. I was abroad at the time when I read of these appointments, but I thought to myself that this was an odd set-up to run a great air corporation, and I rather wondered what the hatchet-faced business men, the Americans, the Dutch, the Swiss, the Belgian, the Scandinavian and other competitors of B.O.A.C., are thinking of it.

In my view, the objections can be summed up as follows. First of all, whatever may he the right answer in other nationalised industries—I make no comment on that to-day—I am sure that B.O.A.C. calls for a Chairman who will put in the major portion of his time on B.O.A.C. duties. I do not object to his having one or two other quite minor interests, as Sir Miles Thomas had—it is sometimes a mental change; but in my view his primary occupation should be the Corporation. As we know, in this case the Chairman is a part-time, unpaid Chairman who in these days, one presumes, obviously has to earn his living, and to put in a considerable amount of time in earning his living, in other walks of life. He is deputy chairman of a banking company and he is chairman or on the board of other activities which have nothing whatever to do with flying. I know that in another capacity he is interested in a company which deals in fibres in Tanganyika—which I should say was a far cry from flying. That is the sort of thing in which he is interested, and one presumes that he has to put into these other companies a good deal of his time; one cannot blame him for that because, after all, they are paying him.

Secondly, the Government should never have appointed to be the Deputy Chairman of this Corporation a senior civil servant from the Ministry controlling the Corporation, and one who has himself been in constant daily touch with B.O.A.C., representing his Minister and, through his Minister, Parliament—one of our watch dogs, so to speak. When Sir Arnold Overton, the then Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, was appointed in 1953 to the Board of B.E.A. I protested on December 3, 1953, in your Lordships' House on the principle involved—that is to say, that in my view a senior civil servant should never be appointed to the board of one of the industries which he is controlling, or helping to control, as a civil servant. In reply, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said—I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT (Vol. 184, col. 971): I recognise that if some such appointments became a common practice it would he open to objection. This appointment was locked at carefully at the time and was scrutinised with these particular points in view. It was, however, felt that there were special reasons why it was desirable that Sir Arnold Overton's experience in the field of civil aviation should be made available to the Corporation, and in particular his experience on the financial side. Therefore, without differing from the principle raised by the noble Lord, I recognise that this is a special case and that it is the particular qualifications of Sir Arnold Overton which are the justification of this action and which make it right and proper. It is most odd that every time a top civil servant in the Ministry of Civil Aviation approaches retiring age under this Government, it is a special case and he has to be appointed to one of the air corporations. As for Mr. Smallpiece, although he is admirable as a financial expert and accountant, yet I would say that by training and by disposition he is riot the person for the exacting task of chief executive; and I also think it quite wrong that as chief executive he should have a seat on the Board.

Who should the Government have appointed as Chairman? I would say someone from out of the industry. I cannot believe that B.O.A.C., B.E.A., and, failing them, the independent companies, have no one who can fill the bill. Failing anyone experienced in air transport, I would have sought someone experienced in transport of another kind— say, long-distance haulage. I should not have chosen a banker, a civil servant, an accountant, or anyone who had not had actual experience in the transport line, unless there were exceptional reasons for so doing of which in this case we have had no indication. In my view, there is already far too much stardust in civil aviation—

THE EARL OF SELKIRK What!

LORD OGMORE

Too much looking at the dust coming from the stars—starryeyed, if you like. What is needed is a man who has run his business the hard way and, metaphorically speaking, has sold tickets on the floor.

Now we come to the curious incident of Lord Rennell. I am sorry to have to refer to the noble Lord in his presence, but I can assure him that I shall be as careful as I can and not embarrass him any more than I must. But he is a factor—indeed, almost the key figure—in this puzzle. It was a complete puzzle to me until I found that Lord Rennell was the key; then it did not remain very much a puzzle any longer. Lord Rennell is a member of the Board, and until recently was Deputy Chairman. Lord Rennell resigned because he considered it wrong to have a part-time Chairman and a full-time deputy. That is what he said in public. Drawing upon his military experience, he said that it was tantamount to having a colonel part-time commanding troops, with an adjutant in the orderly room all the time and in charge of troops. Most of us would agree with Lord Rennell. That is the criticism we on this side now make. We honoured him for resigning. Since then, however, he has rejoined the Board, in spite of the fact that the colonel is still part-time and the adjutant will run the orderly room and the troops. There has been no change in the top set-up; the only change has been in Lord Rennell.

The following, however, may explain it. I understand that the Minister stated that Sir George Cribbett had been appointed full-time Deputy Chairman and Managing Director of B.O.A.C.; and a Press statement was prepared which said that Sir George Cribbett was to be a full-time Deputy Chairman with responsibility for the administration of the Corporation. On this, the Board threatened to resign, and in fact Lord Rennell did resign, although, so far as I am aware, his letter of resignation has never yet been published. When the Board, and particularly Lord Rennell, threatened to resign on this issue, the Minister withdrew from an untenable position—because of course he had no right whatever to appoint a chief executive—and he then appointed Sir George Cribbett as the Deputy Chairman and allowed the Board to make their own choice of chief executive, which they did in Mr. Basil Smallpiece. The Minister then, quite wrongly in my opinion, appointed Mr. Basil Smallpiece as a member of the Board.

The facts I have outlined above are disturbing; the rumours circulating are even more disturbing and, as we know from statements that have appeared in the Press, the pilots and ground staff have obviously been upset. The Minister, Mr. Watkinson, has stated that he intends to see that B.O.A.C. follows an all-out policy of "flying British"—that is his expression. On April 23, the News Chronicle published an exclusive interview with the Minister, and said this: Fly British! That will he the watchword for B.O.A.C. The Corporation will pin its faith and its future on the Britannia, the Comet and other airliners which Britain must produce. The Minister's insistence on it, and his complete confidence in its ultimate success, are two of the principal reasons for the top-level appointments which have created upheaval in B.O.A.C. administration. Mr. Watkinson intends to pursue his objective vigorously, relentlessly—and without interference. Said he, There is a ready course open to anyone who disagrees with it.' He talked of his 'very large and ambitious plans' in the 'highly competitive' days ahead. He declared: On the success that B.O.A.C. has with the Britannia and the Comet depends much of the future of the whole British aircraft industry. We just cannot live on one successful airliner the Viscount. Our future depends on the success of B.O.A.C. as a proving ground for these new British aircraft.' Mr. Watkinson's summing-up of his policy: we must make another great attempt to pioneer some new British passenger aircraft. 'I have never been an advocate of British airlines flying American planes' he went on 'nor am I in favour of hybrid planes with British engines and American frames.' As your Lordships can imagine, this interview, exclusive or otherwise, was a bombshell to the Board of B.O.A.C. and caused the utmost consternation among them and I understand that they again threatened to resign. The Minister once more beat a strategic retreat and showed them the gist of a speech he was proposing to make at (of all places) the Foreign Airlines Association. He toned down his previous ultimatum or Napoleonic declaration of policy to their liking, or at least to a lesser extreme.

To those of your Lordships who do not know much about aircraft—although, fortunately, there are very few in that category—this interview of Mr. Watkinson may seem highly laudable. But, of course, it is complete and absolute nonsense. The "Fly British" cry is quite an absurdity. It is no part of an airline's business to be a proving ground for any aircraft. Airlines should fly the most suitable aircraft, irrespective of nationality, as, in fact, they all do. It would be quite ridiculous to have a kind of "blood test" of nationality for aircraft that are to be used. It is a good thing for British aircraft that other airlines do not take this view, because, as we know, not only has the Viscount been very successful but some forty Britannias have already been ordered; and many more are on the way. There is also the new Conway bypass engine which is being put into aircraft and will continue in increasing numbers, in Canada, America and other parts of the world. No airline in the world could possibly be expected to carry on if it were ordered to use only the aircraft of a particular country. They could not do so and compete.

Let us take the "Fly British" statement and ignore for the moment its absurdity. Even on his own statement the Minister has let B.O.A.C. down. If the Sunday Times correspondent (a very well-informed man) is correct, in January last the noble Lord, Lord Burghley, and his technical committee recommended that a version of the Comet with Conway bypass engines should be prepared for production. The Conway is the engine now in the American airframe D.C. 8. No action whatever has been taken on that request, I understand, but in the meantime Trans-Canada Airlines, one of the competitors of B.O.A.C., have ordered four D.C. 8 air liners fitted with the Conway bypass, the Rolls-Royce engine.

In this unhappy state of affairs we on this side of the House require certain assurances from Her Majesty's Government. First, we should like an assurance that there is no intention to depart in any way from the principle of nationalisation of the great air corporations, and that nothing will be done to limit their development, but that, on the contrary, everything will be done by this Government and the boards to ensure their increasing prosperity. Secondly, we want to know what were the reasons for the team appointed to B.O.A.C. and what ground Her Majesty's Government have for thinking it will be successful. Speaking in another place on Wednesday last, the Minister stressed the fact that the Corporation was facing a position of great financial difficulty and that he wished to strengthen the top management so that there might be plenty of opportunity for individuals to give attention to this matter. We do not know what that Delphic utterance means. So far as we can make out, it means that finance, in the narrow sense of the word, will reign supreme and that the proper running of a great airline such as B.O.A.C. may well take a secondary place.

Thirdly, if ask: does the Minister intend to give the Board any directions as to what aircraft they shall use? He has stated: One clear precedent I intend to maintain is that B.O.A.C. policy shall be a matter between me and the chairman. Will the Minister, therefore, dictate to the Board which types of aircraft the Corporation shall fly, even if, from the operational point of view, those aircraft are not the most desirable? And what is the position of other members of the board when "me and the chairman" are deciding policy? I believe that a lot of the trouble has arisen through Mr. Watkinson's foolish and bombastic statements. If he wants to be the Napoleon of the Air he had better look round and find a less important instrument to experiment with than this great airways Corporation. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

5.38 p.m.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, I feel that this debate is both useful and timely. It is rather an odd thing that in this House we always seem to be able to debate the nationalised industries whenever it is useful to do so. Perhaps in that respect we are more fortunate than they are in another place. We have more time, of course—that I appreciate—but I believe we also have a more flexible procedure, which enables us to discuss all those things which it is in the public interest should be discussed, and at the same time to abstain from a number of petty matters which are much better kept out of discussion. I must not say more about that, otherwise I may be getting into trouble with another place.

Certainly this is a matter which ought to be discussed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that B.O.A.C. is a very important entity. It is not only of national interest; it is a great national asset. It enjoys, and has for many years enjoyed, a high reputation, not only for safety—and, after all, safety still remains the most important element of all in civil aviation—but also (and I have recently been hearing about this in the United States of America and Canada as well as here) for good service both in the air and on the ground. Its prestige is important, and what is even more important than its prestige is that it is a valuable dollar earner. Therefore, it is certainly in the national interest that B.O.A.C. should prosper and should be efficiently managed; also—because the two things go together—that it should be a happy ship.

I think the important issue in this debate is this:—is what has been done sound and right? I think that is a much more important issue than whether it was done in the right or the most tactful way. I may say at once—I do not know what we may be hearing upon this point from my noble friend a little later—that there does, at first blush, appear to have been perhaps a slight ineptitude. I will not put it any higher than that. My noble friend may have something to say on it. I think the noble Lord who has spoken suggested that there may have been some ham-handedness in the handling of the matter. I should not like to say that. All I will say is that there was, perhaps, a slight ineptitude in some of the way in which it was handled. It may well be that there are some reasons which the Government spokesman will disclose to us which will clear up the point. As I say, I should not like to pronounce upon it now, but will only repeat that there seems to have been prima facie a very slight ineptitude. However, I do not think that that matters very much.

I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who is also a skilful advocate, concentrated a good deal more on the method which had been pursued than on the substance of what has been done. I should like, on the other hand, to concentrate for a moment or two on the substance of what has been done, because, after all, that is the thing which endures and the thing that matters. I suggest that we should be wise in this debate to concentrate most on whether the framework of organisation which has been established now in this Corporation is sound and whether the appointments are good appointments. It is true that one might say colloquially "This is anyone's guess," because the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and nobody can form a final judgment until we see how it works. But, at any rate, we can look at the principles now.

The main change which has been made is a change from a Chairman, a man of great ability and driving force, who combined the offices of Chairman and Chief Executive, to a separation of these two offices, so that there is now a Chairman who is a part-time Chairman and a Chief Executive who is a whole-time officer. I say at once that, as a general principle, I believe it is absolutely right to separate the functions of the Chairman and the Chief Executive, the General Manager. Particularly where large questions of policy come to the Board, I think there may be a good deal of embarrassment if the two functions are combined in one person. The Chairman of a company, like the Prime Minister, is primes inter pares; but he is, particularly if a man of strong personality, in a dominating position, and he has predominating influence. Therefore I would say that except in very exceptional circumstances it is not right to have a Chief Executive, as it were (and not only as it were, but in fact) reporting and recommending to himself as Chairman. I am delighted to see that in the other Corporation, British European Airways, after an inevitable interlude I have no doubt, there has been a reversion to this sound practice of having a separate Chairman and a separate Chief Executive. Therefore, upon the main decision and action which have been taken here I would venture respectfully most strongly to commend to the House the action which has been taken in separating those two functions. There was criticism that the Chairman was a part-time Chairman.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I did not criticise the separation of the tasks. I am not against having a separation as between Chairman and Chief Executive. I hope that the noble Earl understands that. He will recognise that the Chief Executive is also a member of the Board, which I think is a mistake.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

Of course I recognise that. I am glad that the noble Lord has made it clear that he thinks it right, or at any rate not wrong (I appreciate the importance of sitting on the fence), to separate the two functions. I do not see any objection to a Chief Executive being a member of the Board. These things vary from company to company, but I have myself a good deal of experience of companies which have a managing director (he is called the managing director because he is both manager and director) and I do not see why the manager and chief executive should not be a director. I think that in the majority of companies both in this country and in America he is so, and in fact it works very well. If that is the only criticism which the noble Lord has to advance I do not think that the Government need be unduly worried. But I understood him to say (perhaps we can go along together in this exercise still further) that he did not like the Chairman to be a part-time Chairman.

LORD OGMORE

And unpaid.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

I do not think I agree with him there, and I will tell the House why. Of course, the Chairman must give all the time that is necessary to the duties of his office. But I think that when you have a chairman and managing director, both quite properly separate in their functions, and you make the chairman a whole-time man, there is a risk of the chairman overlapping and even to some extent usurping the detailed executive functions of the chief executive or managing director. Therefore, I think it is not at all a bad thing to have a part-time chairman. It is certainly no bad thing—this is something which I know we shall differ about —that a chairman should have some interest outside the particular company, not because it is going to distract his attention but because of the value of wider experience, particularly when a man is a chairman. It is rather a good thing when you come to be Prime Minister—I think the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will agree with me in this—to have had a lot of experience in a number of other Departments. It is certainly a good thing to keep in much with a lot of Departments and with the outside world. Therefore, I hope that we shall not make a fetish of saying that a man must have only a single interest. The noble Lord said that the Chairman needed to have vision, to see the stars and all the rest of it. If you are going to circumscribe the man's activities, you are not likely to get that. I think that the framework of the new set-up is good.

Now I come to the question of the right selection of men. I think the noble Lord will agree with me—and I would certainly say this if he were Minister and I were criticising the appointments he had made—that we must credit the Minister with doing his best to find the best men for the job. After all, he will do it on the lowest ground; his own reputation is at stake.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, the noble Earl is putting; up Aunt Sallies and knocking them down; they are things I did not say. Can the noble Earl give us his considered view of the position of the third man—that is, of the full-time, paid Deputy Chairman?

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me to make my speech as I and the whole House encouraged him to make his, he will find that I am not going to shirk any of these questions, and I shall do it more shortly if he allows me to do it in my own order. Tae Minister will try to make the best appointments, and any Minister has a great deal of confidential advice open to him. He can send for anybody and have confidential talks with him before he makes up his mind. Everybody he asks will advise him in strict confidence and give him the best advice he can. We all have had this experience.

Let us take these appointments. There is the Chief Executive. We agree that it is better that he should be separate from the Chairman. I am glad that the Chief Executive has been appointed from within the Corporation: it is always a good thing to promote "within the regiment," if one can. I do not know the Chief Executive personally, or know him only very slightly, if I do, but I understand that he is a man with wide experience who has commanded the full confidence of all his associates in the work he has done. The noble Lord said it was an odd thing to pick a man who, among other things, is a skilful accountant. I know that in some of our nationalised industries accounts do not count for much, but I should have thought that to have a man who, in addition to his other qualifications, is a first-class accountant, was a good thing. After all, these accountants have not been so unsuccessful in business, judging by some of the accounts which noble Lords on the other side criticise for their excessive profits. A number of companies which have done very well have had accountants in predominating positions—for instance, there is Unilever, which has not altogether made a loss and which certainly owes a great deal to accountants. I think it is a good thing to have an accountant.

Then there is the Chairman. I must say the noble Lord was a little unfair. I barely know the Chairman—I know him slightly. The noble Lord said that we must have a man with vision, business sense and a knowledge of aviation. Certainly Mr. d'Erlanger has all three. I know that in the war—and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will agree with me—Mr. d'Erlanger undertook a large creation in the running of a transport undertaking which brought planes from all over the country and ferried them everywhere. Of that I have some knowledge, and in that he did a first-class job. He knows a great deal about aviation and I understand that all those associated with him thought he did extremely good work when he was a Director. He did not agree with everybody—I am very glad that he did not. It is a good thing to be able to speak your mind. I gather that he disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, or that the noble Lord disagreed with him.

LORD PAKENHAM

Not on any point of substance that I recollect.

THE EARL OF SWINTON

Not on any point of substance? If it was on any delicate social matter, then I do not wish to try to penetrate it. If there was no difference on any matter of substance, then—the respect I have for the noble Lord is as great as that I have for Mr. d'Erlanger—obviously he did pretty well. He certainly has a good business sense.

Finally, there is Sir George Cribbett. Here I can speak with first-hand knowledge, because I owe a great deal to Sir George and I have a high respect for him. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord say that we should not appoint civil servants to these business positions. I seem to remember that the Labour Government frequently appointed civil servants to the nationalised industries. I am not blaming them for it. The only difference, apparently, was that they appointed civil servants into industries which they knew nothing about, and my right honourable friend has appointed a gentleman who knows a great deal about aviation to a position in aviation. I should not have thought that that was a mistake.

I was the first Minister of Civil Aviation and I was faced with the difficult job at a moment's notice of leading the British delegation at the international conference at Chicago. As my noble friend Lord Knollys knows, it was not an easy job or in easy circumstances. I cannot say how much I owe to Sir George Cribbett, who was one of my principal advisers during that long conference. Sir George was largely responsible for devising the plan of international arrangements, which commanded, not the support of the politicians of the American delegation, but the support of the people of America who really knew about aviation—men like Warner, Wright and Welsh Pogue. He was largely responsible for the plan which, with only minor modifications, was adopted at Bermuda. I can say this about Sir George Cribbett: I do not know anybody in the field of international civil aviation who has a wider knowledge, a surer judgment or, I may add, a more potent influence. I am sure that he will give valuable service.

I would add one caution on this point and here I agree with the noble Lord that it is probably unnecessary, but it is important. I gather from something the noble Lord said in his speech—I missed the announcement in another place: I was more agreeably, I can hardly say more profitably, trying to fish the Tweed —that it would be wise, to define clearly, if that has not been done, the functions of the Chief Executive and the Deputy Chairman. I am sure there will be plenty of work for both of them.

I have ventured to address your Lordships on this matter, not only because I am deeply interested in the subject but because I have had a good deal of experience in it, as other noble Lords have had, and I hope I can speak without prejudice. I would only say, in conclusion, that I hope that as a result of this debate the message which will go out from this House will be a message of encouragement to all those who are called upon to undertake the management of this great national enterprise and to all those who serve in it.

6.0 p.m.

LORD ROCHDALE

My Lords, one thing that we can all be certain of and agree about is that we are very jealous of the reputation of B.O.A.C., and most of us who have had the privilege of flying in B.O.A.C. aircraft have determined that that privilege shall be repeated as often as possible. Whenever I fly, other things being equal, I endeavour to fly by that airline in preference to any other, and I believe there are others who feel the same. That being so, when, for instance, at the time of the Comet disasters one heard criticisms of shortage of the right type of aircraft and so on, one was obviously sorry, because it was quite evident that those who made those criticisms did pot appreciate what a terrific disaster it was to B.O.A.C., and what a tremendous effort would be needed to surmount the difficulties created. I feel so strongly about that particular point that when I saw this matter was clown to be discussed in your Lordships' House I took some trouble to look up one or two facts as to the history of B.O.A.C. I should like to take up a few moments of your Lordships' time to paint the background against which I think we should discuss the particular appointments which figure in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.

Looking back since the end of the war into some of the B.O.A.C. earlier reports, the thing that struck me was that immediately after the war the Corporation was saddled with an immense variety of aircraft that had not been basically designed for commercial use. They were all converted military aircraft; they all had a very low pay-load arid their maintenance system was scattered over a wide and difficult area. Coming forward to March, 1952, which was the time when the Comets first came into service, I find that the number of aircraft had then been changed from 137 clown to 72, and in practically every case the pay-load and the number of seats had been doubled; the maintenance bases had been cut from 8 to 2; the operating revenue, which is the important fact, had been increased (I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, quoted these figures) from something over £14 million to over £33½ million; and the revenue per head of staff employed in B.O.A.C. had been raised from over £600 a year to over £2,000 a year. With all that, a deficit of £7½ million in 1947–48 had been converted in 1952 to a modest profit of £250,000, which the following year was to be raised to £1 million, and the year after, despite the Comet disasters, was still to be of the order of £250,000.

I suggest that these figures speak for themselves. They would not have been achieved without a tremendous amount of thought and effort on the part of all concerned; not merely thought on technical matters, but on such other matters as organisation, sales promotion, accounting, financial control; and, not least, the ability of the Board to be able to weld together a team that could not only run a public service throughout the world of a very high standard but was able to do so against tremendous competition, paying its way and showing a profit.

Such was the position in May, 1952, when the Comets were introduced, and it does not need me to remind your Lordships of the immense prestige the Corporation had durieig the following two years when the Comets were in service. The time was being, cut by half from this country to South Africa and to the Far East, and they were able to do that at a profit. When the Comets had to be withdrawn, as my noble friend Lord Swinton has just said, it was a major disaster, not only to the company who built them and to B.O.A.C., but to the country as a whole. Overnight the Corporation lost something like one-fifth of its carrying capacity; and it was inevitable that some services had to be curtailed and others suspended. It speaks for the inherent soundness of the organisation as a whole that, by adaptation and improvisation of one kind and another, an organisation with long lines of communication the world over, of necessity a complex organisation, was built, first, to carry on and then to make a small profit in 1954–55, even if a reduced one on the previous year. Since then new aircraft of one kind and another have had to be purchased as stopgaps; further Constellations, further Stratocruisers and so on.

I am sure that many people do not realise that the purchase of an aircraft is only one aspect of its introduction into service. There is the training of crews, the training of the maintenance staff, the provision of servicing facilities, of spares and of the appropriate centres. There is no doubt that at the time of the Comet disasters there must have been an immense organisation planned in order that these new aircraft, the Comets, to be followed later by the Avon Comets and then the Britannias, could be brought into service. All these detailed and complex plans had, overnight, as it were, to be disrupted. That it was possible at all to improvise so speedily, and with so little loss of capacity, was, to my mind, an outstanding achievement which stands to the credit of the Board of B.O.A.C. and all the staff who work under them. New types of aircraft were ordered, and further orders for the most up-to-date American aircraft had to be placed if B.O.A.C. was to hold its own pending the introduction of the long-range Britannias and what one can now regard as the new race of Comets.

That brings us to 1956. It has been said recently that 1956 could be a critical year for the Corporation. That may or may not be so, but I would say, reading as a layman what one can about the Corporation and its activities, that it has reached a position when it can go ahead with its major problems behind it to renewed success. Again, I would say that this promising position is not fortuitous: it is, surely, the result of a tremendous amount of hard work, energy and imagination from top to bottom. Here I should like to join with other noble Lords who have paid tribute to the tremendously energetic work of Sir Miles Thomas, the late Chairman. If renewed success is to be achieved, there is certainly not room anywhere for unfair comment from outside, or for unhappiness inside the organisation. There is no doubt that the present situation—which, though inevitable, I feel in some ways must be regarded as unfortunate—must be set against this background of real achievement.

It would be all too easy, reading some of the Press reports that have appeared over the last two weeks with regard to these appointments, for many people outside to get a false impression about the strength and soundness of the B.O.A.C. organisation. Certainly, I think this ought not to be allowed, because it could do a great deal of damage to the reputation of B.O.A.C. and would be totally unfair to all concerned who are in that Corporation. Piecing together, as I have tried to do, many of the Press reports—there have been a great number of them, some rather confusing and one, I think, a comparatively minor leakage —to my mind certain things stand out. That brings me to the particular points which are the subject of this Motion. I want to emphasise that I have worked up to this point because I wanted to try to paint your Lordships a picture of a very resilient, sound organisation, and not an organisation that was otherwise in any difficulty; an organisation that has achieved a great reputation and does not deserve to be unfairly treated.

The first point is, of course, the question of the appointment of the Chairman. One thing I am pleased about is that the appointment makes it quite clear that the Minister has accepted the view that the functions of the Chairman, on the one hand, and the Chief Executive—or, as he is now called, I am glad to see, Managing Director—on the other, are to be entirely divorced from one another. That, I am quite sure, is absolutely right. Of course, with different organisations one sometimes has to tailor the organisation to particular individuals, and it may have been that, with Sir Miles Thomas, it was best that he should undertake the two functions. There are similar cases that one could quote. I think it is generally admitted, however, that in business, these days at any rate, one sound way of running things is to divorce the executive responsibility from the chairman's responsibilities.

If your Lordships have not already done so, I would strongly recommend you to read the leading article in The Times of March 28, which puts the case in this instance in an extremely clear and forceful way. It makes a particular point as regards B.O.A.C., and I suppose it would apply to any nationalised industry, because it makes the point that, whereas the Chairman is to be concerned with policy matters, there is also a Minister who, under the Act, is responsible for general direction of matters of policy. If he is going to talk with the Chairman, who is also concerned with matters of executive day-to-day detail, it is all too easy for the Minister, in his enthusiasm, to go a little too far and get himself tied up in executive detail, instead of confining himself to the matter of policy. That is why I think that the principle underlying this appointment of the part-time Chairman is fundamentally right. It is unfortunate that in certain quarters it has been regarded as derogatory that there should be a part-time Chairman in any organisation so important as B.O.A.C. But I share the view of my noble friend Lord Swinton in the way he has made the case for a pal-time Chairman.

LORD OGMORE

May I suggest to the noble Lord that what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, did not do was to make a case for a part-time unpaid Chairman?

LORD ROCHDALE

So far, I have not said anything about the question of his payment, but on the question of the part-time Chairman would say that obviously I would expect him to spend as much time on the job as is necessary to do that job really satisfactorily.

The noble Lord has just referred to the question of his payment. I admit that do not much like the way that it is proposed, or we understand it is proposed, that he is to be paid. I am not personally acquainted with the individual concerned, and I am not going to comment on that—other noble Lords have already done so. But on the principle, I am quite certain that the right decision has been taken.

LORD PAKENHAM

May I interrupt the noble Lord? Would he apply that principle, of having a part-time Chairman, through the nationalised industries, coal and transport generally?

LORD ROCHDALE

My experience leads me to suppose—again depending upon the personality of the individual concerned—that in any industrial organisation there is often a great deal to be said for having a full-time executive and —I will use the term "part-time" if you like—a non-executive Chairman. I do not see why, without having considered the matter, it should not apply just as much to other nationalised industries as it does to a great many private business organisations.

Coming to the question of the Deputy Chairman, I must say that I was surprised when I read of this appointment. I do not know the individual civil servant concerned, and I am quite prepared to accept the very high regard that my noble friend Lord Swinton has for him. But, at the same time, I was rather unhappy about the appointment when I first read of it in the Press. Rightly or wrongly, I rather jumped to the conclusion that it was a first step to his being appointed chief executive. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said something about that which I thought was a little more definite. I was not, therefore, surprised when my noble friend Lord Rennell resigned. The only thing I would say is that the position of the full-time Deputy Chairman, and what he is supposed to do, has now been somewhat resolved, and I am not going to say any more about him. As regards the appointment of the new Managing Director, the chief executive is the appointment of the Board, although I can well see that, in so far as he is also a Director, the Minister may come into the matter to some extent. I welcome the appointment of somebody from within the Board to be Managing Director, and from all that I can gather that appointment is generally welcomed.

Those are the three major points and the three important things. In the ordinary course of events, one would have hoped that those appointments would have gone through smoothly and that nothing need have been said about them. In my view it is unfortunate that, whilst these appointments were being made, two other somewhat confusing events took place. It appeared in the Press, at any rate, that one was an abrupt termination of the appointment of Lord Burghley, and the other was the misunderstanding that has already been referred to—the Press quotation of the report in the News Chronicle as to what took place between the Minister and a reporter on the question of the purchase of British aircraft or otherwise. That position was substantially resolved in a subsequent speech which the Minister made in another place, but it did seem to me that the first statement, as reported in the News Chronicle, could all too easily, rightly or wrongly, have been taken by the existing Board as being an implied criticism of the way they had handled affairs and a suggestion that perhaps they had not put sufficient stress on the purchase of British aircraft. It seems to me that, if that was a criticism, it was most unfortunate seeing that the Board had gone out of their way in the early days and had taken a gamble over the Comet. The Comet disaster was evidence itself of that.

The position now, of course, is fairly clearly resolved, but the fact remains that these misconceptions, shall we say, have obviously had a somewhat unfortunate effect on the staff of B.O.A.C. I can only hope that, now the new Board has been appointed, that disturbance will be soon forgotten and the Corporation will be allowed to go ahead and forward. I was very glad indeed when I saw that my noble friend Lord Rennell had agreed to rejoin the Board, because that in itself shows a measure of good will to try to get these unhappy events healed so that progress can once more be made. In many of these sorts of difficulties, one hears it said: "Least said, soonest mended," but I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that this debate had to take place in order that misunderstandings of one kind or another could be aired, and that any misconception as to the strength and soundness of B.O.A.C. itself could be killed once and for all time.

I should like to end by saying to my noble friend Lord Selkirk who is to reply that I very much hope that he will be able to give us certain assurances. First of all, I hope he will underline what, in effect, the Minister himself has already said by his appointments: that he has no intention at all of departing from the accepted practice that the Minister does not concern himself with executive matters. That is important, to be underlined. Secondly, I hope the noble Earl will make it clear that nothing the Minister said in connection with the purchase of British aircraft was intended to be in any way derogatory to the then Board of B.O.A.C., because I think it would be unfair if it was. Thirdly, I hope it will be made clear that, whilst we shall all obviously applaud the policy of "Buy British wherever we can," it must be left to the Board and their technical experts to decide from time to time which are the best aircraft to purchase, so that the Corporation can fulfil the duties laid down for it by Parliament and can carry on a service which is a credit to this country and also pays its way.

6.24 p.m.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said that he does not so much object to the substance of what has been done, but he dislikes the way in which it was done. I should like to follow him in that view. One of the reasons for these rather unfortunate events which led up to what may be a perfectly correct decision in the end may well be the fact that the Minister, who had not been long in his appointment, was not in as close touch as possible, and did not know well, the members of the Board and the senior people in B.O.A.C. I know there was much feeling among certain people in the Corporation that that was the case. There is no doubt that these events have been bad publicity for B.O.A.C. Good publicity is most important for any airline competing in the world's markets. As an agent of theirs, I work closely with the Corporation, not perhaps at Board level but a little lower down the scale. One senior executive said to me at a travel function the other night—and I heartily agree with him—"For Heaven's sake, leave us alone and let us get on with our job of running an airline." There is no doubt that, by and large, the story of B.O.A.C. in the last few years, in spite of setbacks with the Comet, has been a success story. It has been turned from an organisation making tremendous losses to a substantial profit-earner. I should like to join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to Sir Miles Thomas and Mr. Whitney Straight for what they have done in the past.

We ought to be able to say that B.O.A.C. is now a stable and a going concern. A very wise man, who is the head of a great textile and clothing industry, once said to me: "The most important thing in business is to get your chain of command worked out so that promotion can be made from within." I think that for the future that should be given most careful consideration, because it is undesirable, unless absolutely necessary, to bring people in from outside over the top of those who have grown up in the company. I am not saying that these appointments were not quite right and proper, but, for the future, I hope that this will be the cardinal principle. I think most noble Lords who have run businesses of their own will agree with me. The other thing I should like to ask— and it is something on which the Government have to make up their minds—is whether the Chairman of B.O.A.C. is to be treated as the head of a big business whose views are normally accepted, or is to be more in the position of the Director-General of the Post Office, under the direct orders of the Minister. In my view, the Chairmen of our great Corporations should be given a much freer hand, as is the case in K.L.M., Air France and other nationalised or partially nationalised corporations of foreign countries.

I should like to say a little about the ordering of aircraft. In that regard, I think that the Chairman and the Board of B.O.A.C. should be given as free a hand as possible. We all want to order British aircraft, but, as a user and as someone whose organisation sells a great many tickets for airlines, I think that when once an aeroplane is flying in the colours of a certain country, in the colours of B.O.A.C., people think of it as a British aircraft, whether or not it was, in fact, manufactured in this country. I give the instance of the Danish cross-Channel packet which was built in Newcastle. It operates under the Danish flag and, quite irrespective of where it was constructed, it is regarded as Danish.

I am a little worried about the delays in ordering new aircraft and the delays due to "teething troubles" before these aircraft get into service. I often think it is unfortunate that the Corporation should have to do so much, riot exactly on proving a plane but in regard to early flying, when so many modifications are bound to crop up. In the United States a large amount of this preliminary flying of new types of aircraft is done by Transport Command first in the carriage of freight and later with trooping, so that by the time the aircraft gets into the airline it is much mire reliable than it otherwise would be. This point applies particularly to engines which can be tried out by Transport Command. Indeed, I see no reason why the Ministry of Supply should not lease aircraft to the charter companies, so that experience on long-distance routes can be obtained before they go into the Corporation. This might mean some delay but I think it would be well worth it.

My Lords, I would add only this: that B.O.A.C. and, to a lesser extent, B.E.A., are in a quite different position from any other nationalised industry. We have got to order our coal from the National Coal Board; by and large we have got to travel by British Railways and we have got to send our freight by British Railways—there are alternate routes by road, but we cannot avoid patronising British Railways. But, if we wish to do so and if their reputation is not good, we can avoid flying either by B.E.A. or by B.O.A.C. Believe me, there are many airlines of every nationality with excellent high-powered salesmen, fighting for more traffic at the expense of our Corporations. I am glad to say—and I am sure that all noble Lords are fully aware of this—that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have more than held their own in the world up to date, and I hope and believe that they will go on doing so.

6.33 p.m.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, we are all anxious to hear the noble Earl—himself a practical airman and a Minister well accustomed to dealing with difficult themes—reply to this debate. We have not had a long discussion, but the speeches have been forceful; and certainly, in the case of my noble friend Lord Ogmore, I would say most damaging to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I do not think that he will have drawn much comfort from other contributions, even from the generous paternal effort of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who dismissed him with a caution on the ground of slight ineptitude. I feel that this hard-pressed Minister is most fortunate—and I think he needs his good forture—that he does not find himself on the opposite side of this House to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I have had to face the noble Earl and have tried to do it without quailing at the thought. But if I came forward with a case such as that with which Mr. Watkinson has equipped himself, I think I should run away and hide, rather than stand up to Lord Swinton. But the noble Earl has done all he can for him—and a very good best it is.

At the risk of some repetition I feel that there are four aspects of this matter upon which we want to dwell, and on which we hope the Minister will say more than a word or two. There are the merits of the individual changes; there is the wisdom of the new set-up; there is the attitude of the Minister towards his relationship with B.O.A.C., and in particular towards its aircraft programme; and there are the intentions of the Minister and the Government towards the issue of nationalisation in the field of civil flying. There is also, of course, the whole conduct of these affairs by the Minister, including his handling of so-called public relations in recent weeks. There, I think, there has been general condemnation. I think we all give the poor Minister an Omega mark and can let it go at that; because I do not think anybody has come forward to say that he has presented his case, whatever it may be, to the public with any skill.

I say one other word of sympathy for the unfortunate Minister whom, to my knowledge, I have not so far had the pleasure of meeting: I feel sympathetic towards a young Minister of Civil Aviation who wants to "go places and do things." I had not been Minister of Civil Aviation for much longer than the present occupant of that position when I had changed two of the Chairmen, amalgamated one of the Corporations with another, rejected a great many aircraft that were on order, and grounded a great many of the remaining aircraft. So I quite understand that any young active Minister should want to beat that record. We can make many allowances for a man in the prime of life, who is certainly human, if a little hubristic, so far as we can see. But if we set aside these minor points of procedure and presentation, we must, of course, come to the merits of the individual changes. Whilst the disappearance of Sir Miles Thomas may admit of a perfectly sound explanation, it is a little surprising. We have had many tributes paid to Sir Miles. I join in them, and even try to bask in them in a little reflected glory, because I had the honour to appoint him. I certainly join in the great tributes which have been paid to his work and to the progress made by B.O.A.C. during his period of office. He has now left us. It is not quite clear why. I understand that he has talked somewhere of "frustration." I do not know whether the noble Earl will be able to explain why Sir Miles left at this particular juncture. It may be that there is nothing more to be said.

Coming to the new appointments (I am dealing now not with the set-up, but with individuals), I sympathise with the bold, public-spirited gentlemen who come forward as Chairmen of nationalised industries. We are bound to discuss and to criticise the appointments, because, after all, the appointment of a chairman is one of the most important things—indeed, almost the most important—that a Minister for a nationalised industry does; and obviously Parliament must discuss the appointments. I realise, however, that we must show a discretion in these discussions, otherwise we should find it impossible to persuade gentlemen of eminence and outstanding repute to apply at all, and I think everyone has to-day borne that fact in mind.

As regard Mr. d'Erlanger, I am particularly anxious, as everyone will realise, to say nothing which would make harder his already difficult task. As many Members are aware—it was referred to earlier in the debate—it fell to my lot to inform Mr. d'Erlanger early in 1949 that it would not be possible for me to reappoint him when his time came to an end a few months later. In those circumstances, he preferred, understandably, to resign forthwith. I would emphasise that, in spite of what the Press have said, there was no question of dismissal, which would clearly have argued some grave disagreement between myself and the Chairman or, alternatively, a very low opinion on my part of his competence. And I have never regarded Mr. d'Erlanger as any other than an experienced and capable man, who is, possibly, still more experienced and capable to-day than he was seven years ago. Certainly in recent years, to the best of my belief, he has proved himself a success in business. That is why I intervened earlier to correct an impression which I think had been formed in the mind of the noble Earl.

Nevertheless f formed the opinion at the time when I intimated that I should not be able to reappoint him, and that I could find a Chairman still more suited to the task in hand; therefore it was not a disagreement—there was nothing at which one could point. But I formed that opinion and it is the duty of a Minister to give effect to an opinion which he reaches in those circumstances. On such matters every Minister must make up his own mind. I will add something more. It is now seven years ago. I do not think I have met Mr. d'Erlanger since, but in his recent work at the A.T.A.C. under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, Mr. d'Erlanger has shown a devotion to aviation, and in his assumption of these new duties as Chairman of B.O.A.C. he has shown a moral courage which any fair-minded person must add to the credit side of the calculation. I say that because it is my candid opinion, but I am bound to add that I am not retracting any view I formed in earlier days.

The House will be interested to know what was thought by the Opposition of that time about the prospects of the Corporations, not specifically B.O.A.C. or B.E.A., but both. In the debate on March 1, 1949, which followed Mr. d'Erlanger's resignation, the first spokesman for the Opposition in another place used language which looks rather remarkable to-day (OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 462, col. 209): I do not think these Corporations will ever pay their way. I am trying to be quite unbiased, and I think that any man who comes in to run them as they are at present, will find that it is only a question of time before they break him. The two gentlemen then coming in to run the Corporation were, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, and Sir Miles Thomas. The speaker went on: I do not think that any man can run a business under a Minister who is, perhaps, going to interfere, exert his will and upset the smooth running of that business organisation. He concluded (col. 210): When the Conservative Party comes back to power, we shall make drastic changes to see that the business is run efficiently, and we shall have the courage to 'unscramble' it, where we think it is necessary. I feel bound to give that recollection of the view taken in 1947 by one of the leading Members in Opposition: that these Corporations could never pay their way. That was the situation taken over by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, and Sir Miles Thomas, and, as we have heard, in the case of the B.O.A.C. a loss of nearly £8 million has been transformed into a profit; and in the case of B.E.A. a less of £3½ million in 1947–48 has also been transformed into a profit. So those who had any responsibility at that time are not coming to this House to-day to stand in a white sheet. Having said that, I say, with all seriousness and rather special warmth, that I wish Mr. d'Erlanger well in the work that he has undertaken in these arduous circumstances.

In relation to Sir George Cribbett I feel very much as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, does, whether we are discussing his merits as a man or as an expert on civil aviation. He was for three years one of my two closest advisers. I should not claim to know very much about civil aviation but, so far as I know anything, it is mostly due to Sir George. Throughout that time—and it is still more true to-day—there was no-one in this country, unless it was the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who stands apart, upon whom foreigners concerned with civil aviation were more anxious to draw than Sir George. He has a wonderful position in word civil aviation, in this country and abroad. Personally, I not only hope but believe that he will do remarkably well in his new job.

I am bound to side, however, with the principle so clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that there is grave danger. Though we must learn as we go, for a Minister one almost feels that it is contrary to constitutional practice to appoint to a leading position in one of the nationalisect industries a man who has been one of his closest advisers. The practice is too open to abuse. It is open to grave misunderstanding to start with; and taking the long view, I think the country would be safer without appointments of that kind. I say that with great reluctance in this case, because I defer to Sir George; I admire him so greatly as a figure in civil aviation, and I have so many personal grounds for gratitude. We cannot ignore such warnings as those given, for instance, in the Daily Telegraph which said: There have been instances since the war of civil servants taking up high positions in nationalised industries but they have been rare. The Daily Telegraph goes on to say that this is a most dangerous precedent.

Then we come to the set-up—the part-time Chairman and the full-time Deputy Chairman. It seems to me that that particular combination has been universally condemned, and, so far as I know, it has not received any defence in your Lordships' House to-day. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, was interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and asked if he would care to defend that particular combination; and though on these Benches we listened very carefully we did not hear any defence forthcoming; and I shall be astounded if the noble Earl, when he replies, is able to defend it. If we were to put only one question this would be the first, or at least the second, most fundamental that we should wish to put: how can the noble Earl defend this particular set-up of a part-time Chairman and a full-time Deputy Chairman? In my experience one can defend almost any organisational arrangement, but that one seems to defy even the greatest ingenuity in defence.

We have had a long discussion so I will not spend much time on the question of whether the Chairman should be full-time or part-time. I decline to get into any theological frenzy on the issue. The requirement varies from industry to industry and I seriously put to the noble Earl the point on which I ventured to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. Would the noble Earl be happy to see Sir Brian Robertson become part-time? Quite seriously, one cannot brush aside a question of that kind, and I ask whether he is advocating part-time Chairmen generally in nationalised industries. If not in the others, then why in this particular nationalised industry, which we are told is to go through a time of great difficulty and which certainly involves more travelling than any other industry? With regard to B.O.A.C. I would line up behind the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He argues, and I agree, that the Corporation should have first and over-riding claim on the Chairman who ought to attend the office every day except when on tour. I agree with the noble Lord that some outside contacts are possibly desirable; but, speaking for myself, I should suggest that he be paid full-time salary, whatever you like to make it, from this point of view: that these outside contacts ought to be justified on the ground not that they detract from his contribution but that they actually add to it; and he should be paid as a man who is rendering the equivalent of full-time service.

I am not, therefore, very clear or happy as to what time Mr. d'Erlanger is going to give to B.O.A.C. I have seen various statements attributed to him, though they may not all have been correct. There has been a plethora of statements buzzing about in recent weeks from almost everyone in this field. I do not know whether Mr. d'Erlanger has, in fact, said anything at all on this matter. I saw one statement which implied that he was going to give nearly all his time to B.O.A.C. at the beginning and then perhaps half his time, or not much more, to it. Can we have any enlightenment on how much of his time he is to give to B.O.A.C., because we on this side of the House are convinced that unless he does give over-riding priority to B.O.A.C. he will be unable to do justice to the job?

I am also sure, and I should have thought that almost everyone in the House would agree, that the plan of taking no salary is a serious mistake. I go about daily, meeting people of different Parties and different occupations, but I have not heard anyone defend that particular arrangement. I accept it, as coming from Mr. d'Erlanger, as a well-intentioned and public spirited gesture; I am ready to look at it from his point of view in that way. But I am sure that the Minister has made a serious mistake —for it is the Minister's responsibility—in allowing Mr. d'Erlanger to waive his salary. It tends to create the impression that he is not taking the job seriously, and that he has other occupations to which he has to devote himself in order to earn his living. I wonder, even at this late hour, whether on that point a serious misunderstanding and a source of suspicion could not be removed by making an arrangement under which he received a salary. Let us concede—following the suggestion made during an earlier debate by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, that when the decision has gone against one in politics one should try to offer a constructive amendment to whatever is contemplated—the principle of what is called a part-time Chairman (though I am very sorry to see it) and give to this Corporation this part-time Chairman and full-time Deputy.

We have been told to read The Times of March 3—Lord Rochdale instructed us to read The Times of that date. I read at the time the article to which he has referred, and I shall be delighted to go back to it when this debate is over. May I, in turn, suggest to Lord Rochdale that he reads The Times of April 20? There he will find these memorable words: By appointing a full-time Deputy Chairman the Minister seems to have pre-judged not indeed the question of the chief executive job itself, but at least the conditions under which that job will have to be performed, and pre-judged them quite wrongly. So if I am to take my guidance from The Times of March 3, perhaps the noble Lord will back me up in making this serious criticism. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, quoted the military metaphor used so pungently and effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, about the colonel and the adjutant. We are very glad that Lord Rennell has rejoined the Board. I hope that, without being offensive, I may say that a little sanity there will not do any harm, and I am pleased to think that Lord Rennell will be maintaining that tradition. I realise that he will be only a part-time member, but that seems to mean nothing in these times; it may be that he will be devoting 90 per cent. or even 99 per cent. of his time to it. As Lord Rennell now has Lord Tweedsmuir so closely associated with him, they can always make forceful representations to the Minister. This idea of part-time members making representations to the Minister is some-thing we have been reading about. I am sure they will form a powerful and enlightened little bloc.

The criticism which Lord Rennell made seemed to me to be unaffected by the explanations since offered on the part of the Minister, and I really cannot understand how this absurd set-up was arrived at, except on the hypothesis which has been put forward with a good deal of authority by Lord Ogmore. It seems to me that the Minister intended to appoint a part-time chairman, Mr. d'Erlanger, and a full-time Deputy Chairman, who would also in effect be Chief Executive; but then the Board, by threatening to resign, stopped that So the Minister was left with Sir George Cribbett on his hands, and this new set-up was arrived at. I should say that it is not a set-up which, on its merits, anyone in the House is likely to defend. I hope that as time passes means of adjustment will be found.

I will riot say much to-day about the very important question of aircraft. No doubt when we debate civil aviation as a whole next month that is a matter which will come up. The Minister again seems to have upset people, or to have given rise to a slight misunderstanding—that is how his friends spoke of it. The Times at one point said that: relations between the Minister and B.O.A.C. Board members were strained for a period after one of Mr. Watkinson's statements about the assignment to fly British which he was going to give the new Chairman and his colleagues. I should have thought that when that happened people would have been more agitated, but now a period of strain between a Department and a Minister seems to be accepted as all in the day's work. Later the Minister was understood to have "clarified the position" and explained that his general attitude would not be different from that of his predecessors, so the whole thing was a misunderstanding. So that particular mess is now understood to have been cleared up, leaving no more than a certain amount of confusion and suspicion behind, and we must not linger too long over it when we nave so many other messes to consider.

Finally, I come to the question of the attitude of the Minister and his colleagues to the nationalisation of civil aviation. Members of the House will have read various official and unofficial statements on behalf of the staff of B.O.A.C. which make plain a grave anxiety that the appointment of Mr. d'Erlanger is itself a symptom of an intention to impair the position of B.O.A.C. and to favour its private enterprise rivals, or, alternatively, to inject private capital into B.O.A.C. itself. It is right for me to say that during my association with Mr. d'Erlanger, now seven years old, nothing occurred or was ever said by him to lend special colour to a suspicion of this kind. I think it is only right for me to say that. But I have not seen him for seven years now and I do not know what his present views may be. I must tell the Government frankly that we on this side of the House have never been able to fathom the real desires and purposes of the present Government regarding nationalisation or denationalisation in civil aviation. I recall a statement made in 1949 by the first Conservative spokesman to the effect that when the Conservative Government came back to power: We shall make drastic changes so that the business is run efficiently … and we shall unscramble if and where we think it is necessary. It is true to say that they have not unscrambled or tried to do so so far.

Of course the situation on paper was very bad in 1949. When the Conservative Government was formed at the end of 1951, the picture was much brighter. In December, 1951, Lord Leathers, who was then an overlord in transport, made a statement that was on the whole reassuring. I will not quote more than a sentence. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 174, col. 822]: We have no intention of undermining the existing international network of the Air Corporations, B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. I beg the noble Earl, if he is empowered to do so to-day, and if not to-day when we debate civil aviation next month, to reaffirm categorically that statement of Lord Leathers. I know that the Minister in another place has said that he is not going to denationalise or dismember B.O.A.C., but a good deal could be done to wreck B.O.A.C. while not technically denationalising or dismembering it. I hope we can have some reassuring statement to-day, not only because it would be good for the country generally, but particularly with a view to the effect on the staff.

I hope that I have not spoken harshly of the present Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. We Ministers and ex-Ministers of Transport and Civil Aviation are something of a trade union, and we have no desire to cut one another's throats. I am told that the present Minister did well at the Ministry of Labour, and there is no reason why he should not do well in his present office. I was recently playing golf at Portrush where there is a hole called "Calamity Corner." I believe Mr. Walter Haydon once took thirteen strokes to negotiate it—I need not tell your Lordships how many were required from me. This whole episode has been a "Calamity Corner" for Mr. Watkinson. There is no reason why he should not overcome it and avoid the other two holes which he will find at Portrush: one is "The Giant's Grave" and the other is "Purgatory." But, in all seriousness, he has to make up leeway. In our view, he has slipped badly in recent weeks, and he must show a more modest approach to his job before he can obtain our full confidence.

From the Government as a whole we want a clear statement of whether they are going to continue the splendid work done by the Corporations in recent years. Whatever our political differences, I agree with all the previous speakers who have said that we have at heart the future of B.O.A.C. and realise that they are facing difficult times. I join with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in sending out a message of warm encouragement to the Corporation as a whole and to the new leaders. We send riot only a message of encouragement, but also the profound hope that they will surpass their recent achievements in the immediate future. With all our hearts we wish them well.

7.2 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I was glad to hear the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, because, frankly, I was a little disturbed at the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I do not mind in the least what he said about my right honourable friend, but this is a delicate plant we are dealing with, the B.O.A.C. It has been emphasised over and over again that we are in a world of intense competition. My noble friend Lord Gifford said that this was good publicity for our rivals, and I think we must be careful in addressing ourselves to the discussion of this intensely competitive industry which, although I have not checked this statistically, is probably the industry which has increased more than any other in the world since the war. It is expanding at an enormous speed. I think we have to be careful in what we say, and I hope that nothing has been said to-day which may be taken as a reflection on B.O.A.C. There has been a good deal of confused and irresponsible publicity recently, and I am fairly confident that a good deal of it has not been directed by people who are really interested in the long-term interests of the Corporation. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Rochdale emphasised the false impression which some of this might have given. We must, indeed, be proud of the development which both the national Corporations have made over the last ten years.

I do not propose to deal with these rumours. If I did I would give increased publicity to some things quite unworthy of publicity at all. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that I could not trace some of the sources at all. What I would do is to deal with the facts of the case. There has been a series of events which might spuriously give the impression of being connected. Let me deal with them. First of all, let me deal with the Deputy Chairman, Mr. Whitney Straight. He has been with the Corporation for six years and now has taken up an extremely important appointment with Rolls-Royce. Is he better employed by Rolls-Royce than by B.O.A.C.? Frankly, many of us would have difficulty in answering that question. Sir Miles Thomas resigned after being seven years as Chairman. A man cannot be expected to remain indefinitely as Chairman. The noble Lord rather ingenuously asked the reasons why he resigned. Sir Miles said a number of things at the time which I do not need to repeat to your Lordships now, about politicians and their influence over the Corporations and things of that sort. Whether they were fundamental reasons or not, that is what he said. His services were of high value to the country.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, in defence of Sir Miles Thomas, for whom I have a high regard, is the noble Earl saying that the reasons which he gives might not be the real reasons?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I am trying to pass this lightly. What Sir Miles did say was that he did not particularly like nationalised industry or being pecked at by Back Benchers. He mentioned these things among others, but apparently he wanted to go to another job. I do not make any reflection on Sir Miles—I have already paid him a full compliment in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, resigned from the Board because he did not like the organisation. It was more fully explained to him and he was satisfied.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, as a result of the noble Lord's resignation the organisation was changed. That is why he came back again. It was not because it was explained to him.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I do not see how it could have been changed, because it was not until the new Board of B.O.A.C. was set up that the new organisation could be laid down.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, it was not publicly known, but the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, was told what the new organisation was. As a result of that he resigned, and when he resigned the Minister had another thought and altered the organisation.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, so far as I know that is a pure fairy tale. The noble Lord can tell any story he likes in this House without any authority. I am afraid I know nothing about it.

Lord Burghley served for ten years on the Board. I think it is probably the intention of Parliament—certainly my right honourable friend took it as such—that from time to time new people should be appointed to fill part-time appointments, and for that reason, after ten years, he thought it a good thing to make a change in this appointment. There is nothing the least bit abnormal in that.

Let me turn to the structure of the Board. I do not know whether noble Lords have seen the report (Cmd. 9660) published last December dealing with the structure of the various public boards operating in this country. It is an interesting document, which clearly shows that we have no sealed pattern for nationalised public boards. They take many different forms. Some members are full-time and some part-time; some chairmen are full-time and some part-time, and some are paid and some unpaid. That is the extraordinary system which exists at the, present time. The noble Lord was "laying it on" pretty strongly about unpaid chairmen, but we have already two en existing boards.

LORD PAKENHAM

Which boards are they?

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

There is Mr. Tom Johnston, who is part-time chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board. I think it is right that we should have no sealed pattern of any kind. That is probably what the noble Lord has in mind. I have been surprised at the number of people who go on public boards not just for the salary received.

I should like to turn to the organisation that has been criticised to-day. First, let us be clear about this. A member of the Board has only one duty, and that is to attend Board meetings. That is a duty which the Minister imposes upon him; and the remainder of his duties, if any, flow directly from the decision of the Board itself—that is to say, the duties of any member of the Board are purely a decision for the Board itself. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, has emphasised the difference between policy and execution. Sometimes these are combined in one man, who is executive director. The Minister took the line, which my noble friend Earl Swinton has emphasised, of the strong need for separating the Chief Executive and the Chairman. He took the view that it was better to divide those two jobs and broaden out the base on which the Board was formed. He was perfectly clear about that, and that was one of the reasons why he took the course which he has taken.

I was asked how much time Mr. d'Erlanger was going to give. I am informed that he will give as much as is necessary. I cannot quite accept Lord Pakenham's picture of the Chairman turning up for routine office hours. If I may refer to an old nursery rhyme I heard many years ago, what really matters is not what hours you put in, but what you put into the hours. With a Chairman, I should have thought that that was much more the important matter.

LORD PAKENHAM

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but he is being somewhat vigorous, and I am sure he will not mind. I did not talk about routine. I said that unless the Chairman is on tour it is desirable that he should go to the office every day. I did not say how long he should stay there.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I understood that to mean that he should keep office hours. He certainly should be available, but I do not think he should keep office hours.

I turn now to the major appointment by the Board—namely, that of the Managing Director, Mr. Smallpiece. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has been good enough to read out his functions, but perhaps I might repeat them, because it is important to realise that he has full charge of the whole flying operations of the B.O.A.C.—the operating, engineering, commercial traffic, personnel and accounting activities of the Corporation. I am given to understand that he is fully satisfied with that definition. I next turn to the appointment of a Deputy Chairman, which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said was an absurd set-up. It seems to me that it is entirely a matter for the Board: either they think it is what they want or they do not. If the Board feel it is what they want, then I see no reason why it should not work satisfactorily.

Perhaps I might deal first with the duties, which have been clearly laid down and as to which I understand there should be no difficulty. First of all, the Chairman is undertaking the policy, long-range planning and overall financial control, and the Deputy-Chairman will advise him specifically on those matters. But, over and above that, the Deputy Chairman will undertake liaison with Government Departments, and that is a considerable task, because Government Departments consult B.O.A.C. especially on the question of foreign operators, which is of great importance. There is a large number of companies in one part of the world or another, something like a dozen, with which the Corporation are closely associated. It is important to have someone at Board level who can be a member of the Board and attend Board meetings, and can also supervise generally the relationship and policy of the Corporation in relation to their associates. There are also partners of B.O.A.C.—and Qantas and the South African Airlines are the two major ones. These are tasks which can best be fulfilled at a high level. There is liaison with British independent air companies, I believe, particularly, Skyways and Hunting's with whom B.O.A.C. have certain connections; and there is representation of the Corporation on a certain number of bodies where otherwise the Chairman himself might be a member. As a matter of interest, if we take these three posts of Managing Director, Chairman and Deputy Chairman, we find that twelve months ago there were three full-time people filling them, whereas to-day there are two and a half. I give that only as an example to show that there is plenty for a full-time Deputy Chairman to do.

There are special reasons why an aviation company such as B.O.A.C. requires a full-time man at a high level—not necessarily the Chairman, but a full-time man apart from the Chief Executive. The first thing I would say is that B.O.A.C. fly over some thirty countries all over the world, with the greater number of which bilateral agreements of one kind or another have to be made between the Government of the United Kingdom and the respective Governments. Under all of these B.O.A.C. have to operate, and, of course, they are closely associated with these arrangements. I think it is common knowledge, certainly to noble Lords opposite who have been Ministers of Civil Aviation at one time or another, that the freedom of the air is a different thing from the freedom of the seas. Freedom of the seas does not present the same difficulties as freedom of the air.

There is another point I should like to mention arising from the far-reaching contacts of B.O.A.C., and that is the necessity to travel. If the Chairman had to be somebody who could readily be available it would be more difficult for him to travel to the many different places in which B.O.A.C. operate. As a matter of interest, when the resignation of Sir Miles Thomas was announced, he was in Pretoria; and the Vice-Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, happened to be in Australia. I do not think it matters very much, but it was an occasion when I should have thought it was probably desirable, if possible, that either the Chairman or Deputy Chairman should have been in this country. Moreover, I think it is desirable that a Corporation which is so much in the public eye should be able to find someone at almost any time who can take a broad view of the Corporation's interests and who has a full knowledge of its policy.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that a civil servant should never be appointed. He voted what I had said, and of course I agree that it is a matter which should not in any way be regarded as a normal step in the ladder—though, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said, I could easily quote quite a number of significant instances in which precisely that was done by the Labour Government when they were in power. I refrain from doing so, because I do not think it is desirable. I submit that Sir George Cribbett has a unique experience, and indeed, in certain respects, is a figure in world aviation as perhaps no one else is in this country. My noble friend Lord Swinton referred to it when he spoke, and I am certain he is correct in what he said. One thing I would say is that the placing of civil servants on public Boards has never resulted in those Boards coming under greater control of Government Departments. In fact, experience has been of precisely the opposite character.

The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, asked for certain assurances regarding the status of the Corporations. I am happy to be able to tell him something that I hope will satisfy him, although I know that he is very exacting in these matters. I can repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, said: that we have no intention of undermining the Corporations at all; we have no intention to denationalise, to merge or dismember the Corporations. But I should like to emphasise that, although we can stress the success of recent years, I am not in any way complacent about the difficulties which lie ahead. The Minister has warned us that there are likely to be difficulties and that continued profits are not assured. Quite frankly, I think he is anxious about what may happen. We should like to see British aircraft going back to South America; and we should also like to see the percentage of North Atlantic traffic carried by B.O.A.C. substantially higher than it is at present. I would only say that B.O.A.C. are carrying about one-third of the North Atlantic air traffic from this country, whereas British ships carry about 66 per cent. of the sea traffic. I suggest that there is a considerable margin which could be caught up.

There have not been many questions raised in regard to aircraft, though the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, raised one or two points in that respect. I think I should remind your Lordships that one of the first things the new Chairman did was to set up a Committee of B.O.A.C. to examine the adequacy of the Corporation's aircraft programme. This Committee will consist of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Managing Director, Operations Director, Sales Director, Operations Development Director, Chief Engineer and a senior pilot. This Committee recognises the extreme difficulty and importance of the decision which the Corporation will have to make in regard to future aircraft.

I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, made his point that the Chairman of B.O.A.C. is a man, if I may use his words, whose views are normally accepted. He is not, shall I say, just a general managing director. If anyone wanted any proof of that, it is the fact that he is part-time. I think one of the advantages of being a part-time man is that it is much more difficult to be "in anyone's pocket" than it is for a full-time man, whose whole future is dependent on the position. As regards British aircraft, I do not know that we have gone a great deal further than the famous White Paper which was produced in 1945 or 1946. There it was laid down that it will be the general policy of His Majesty's Government to require the Corporations to use British aircraft types. That injunction has been somewhat honoured in the breach, I must admit. I think we should all like to fly British aircraft, but I can also say that we must recognise that these Corporations must have the best aircraft they can get.

I have not dealt at all with the personalities of these men who have been under consideration. I have sought to examine the organisation and the reasons which have actuated my right honourable friend to take the course he has done. The decision, of course, is his. It has been laid down by Act of Parliament that Board appointments are his responsibility. What I do think is worth remembering is this. Whatever his decision may be, both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have qualifications and have carried responsibility which shows their real and lasting interest in aviation. I should like to remind the House of the record of Mr. d'Erlanger. He is by profession a chartered accountant and vice-chairman of the firm of d'Erlanger. He is a pilot of nearly thirty years' experi- ence; was director of Hillman Airways in 1934; British Airways, 1935; on the Board of B.O.A.C., 1940; Commanding Officer, A.T.A., from 1939 to 1945, in which he commanded some 800 pilots and delivered 350,000 military aircraft; Managing Director of B.E.A., 1946; Chairman of B.E.A., from 1947 until 1949; on the Board of the Air Transport Advisory Council and Deputy Chairman, 1954. That is the record of a man pretty deeply interested in aviation.

May I now turn to Sir George Cribbett? He was a pilot in the Royal Flying Corps from 1914 to 1918, joined the Exchequer and Audit Department in 1919, and subsequently moved to the Air Ministry at the begining of the Second World War, when he was a principal in the Air Ministry. From 1941 to 1943 he was Director of Administrative Finance, R.A.F. Delegation, Washington. On his return in 1943 he was charged with a special responsibility for formulating Britain's post-war international air policy. In 1944 he was delegate under the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, at the Chicago conference, and since 1946 has been deputy Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation. I should add that he was specially charged, with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to reorganise B.O.A.C. during the period when the noble Lord was Minister, and who, I should imagine, was fairly competent to do that. Sir George Cribbett had intended to retire from the Civil Service to enter a business appointment at the end of this year; but at the Minister's request he did not do so and joined B.O.A.C. instead. I say without hesitation that he is in the international sphere, as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said, and I find myself in full agreement. He is probably one of the most experienced men in this country.

I have sought to answer the questions which have been put, because it is important that I should do so. I think that both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of B.O.A.C. are men of very high experience in aviation. Indeed, they have devoted a large part of their lives to the problems of aviation, and I can assure the House that they are both enthusiastic and determined to make a success of this great enterprise. Their only concern will be that B.O.A.C. should become a greater and more important British commercial enterprise. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, wishes to ask me any further questions. What I do hope is that there will be an end of criticism of B.O.A.C. or the personnel, although criticism may rest on my right honourable friend or myself.

7.25 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I do not know that one can ever hope, in this unhappy world, to avoid criticism. In whatever sphere one is in, one must expect criticism. I think the noble Earl is being a little optimistic if he thinks that any organisation can avoid that very human activity.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I merely meant personal criticism. I apologise; I went too far.

LORD OGMORE

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to-day for the care with which they prepared their case and for the interest they have obviously shown in this important issue. I must say that during the years that I have been in either House I have never heard, so far as I can recollect, such a weak case put up by any Minister as that put up by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, this evening. That is not his fault. In fact, as we all know only too well, especially those who sit on this side of the House, the noble Earl is an extremely skilful debater. If there is any case at all he will make it. He will usually make it rather better than it is, but he will make it, and no fault at all lies on him. He has done his best.

The fact is that he has an extremely poor case to make, and that is why it has been so unsatisfactory. I go away from this debate feeling entirely dissatisfied with the result, so far as the Government's answer is concerned. Of course, the noble Earl is only the spokesman for the Minister; but he is a Member of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet take responsibility. So far as his answer is concerned, he has not really answered our main points in this debate—the point of organisation, for example; the unpaid Chairman, the full-time Deputy Chairman, and so on. He has not really answered our point on organisation, and he has not answered our point on the question of whether the Minister intends to direct B.O.A.C. to do things which a Board should never—

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

With respect, I did seek to answer that. The Minister does not intend to direct. He is, of course, responsible to Parliament for the Board, and that is all there is to it. The direction of policy, particularly in aircraft, is the responsibility of B.O.A.C.

LORD OGMORE

Then at some time or other he must have retracted this statement which he gave on, I should have thought, an incredible platform—that is to say, in an exclusive interview in the News Chronicle. Presumably, he has retracted that statement which he made very clearly to the reporter of the News Chronicle. But it is only at this moment that I, at least, have been aware that that is so, and that he will allow the Board to select aircraft which, in their opinion, are the most suitable.

I will not delay your Lordships any longer. In the beginning the noble Earl expressed, with perhaps somewhat pantomime fury, his concern that I had done something to make the B.O.A.C. position more difficult. I can assure your Lordships that the last thing I want to do is to detract m any way from the progress of B.O.A.C. It has my full support and sympathy, and my concern to-day is that the Government, and especially the Minister, have struck a shrewd blow at it. That is what I am now afraid of. In this instance, we are it a difficulty which Oppositions are always in. Your Lordships know that I often address you on colonial questions. Something happens. We are not implicated, and we are not consulted. The Government make a decision or fail to make a decision. A certain event occurs or a transaction takes place. We, the Opposition, object; we ask for certain assurances, and we criticize. We are then told, "You must not do that. You are making the position worse in the Colony. You are affecting the morale of the troops or the police."

Something of the sort has been said to-day. The noble Earl says, "You must not levy these criticisms; you must not raise this subject in Parliament in the way you have done because you will probably, and I am afraid have, affected the public mind. They will think that you are making some dreadful criticism about B.O.A.C., and already the rivals of B.O.A.C. are rejoicing at what you are saying." But after all, my Lords, we are Her Majesty's Opposition. It is our duty to call attention to these matters. It is not we who are at fault: it is the Government who are at fault. We are not at fault for criticising; it is the Government who are at fault for taking the action which causes us to criticise. With those few words, I will ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.