WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL CHECK-IN FACILITIES

HL Deb 02 April 1973 vol 341 cc95-135

7.26 p.m.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will inquire into the passenger problems arising from the suggested withdrawal of check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal in i974, as the report commissioned by them from the Metra Consulting Group states that this matter is outside their terms of reference. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, may I commence by saying five things. This is a matter which has concerned all Parties and none. It is not anti-Government; indeed, we want their help. I should like to express appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for all that he has done in an effort to help, and I think it advisable to say that now in case he should feel that the appreciation had worn a little thin by the end of the debate. I should also like to express appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for all that he has done in helping to prepare for this debate; I am most appreciative. Lastly, I do not know how brief I can be. The facts must be on record if we are to succeed, but I will be as succinct as possible.

I think this might well be called the saga of Gloucester Road. It seems to have gone on for a long time. I hope it will make for clarification if the story is divided into four sections: the position to-day; the position in the future as decided by B.E.A.; the way in which B.E.A. has conducted this operation; and the position of the consumer as an air traveller. If I may take the position today, everyone who uses the West London Air Terminal is familiar with the check-in procedures. You take a bus, taxi or train to Gloucester Road. Your ticket is checked, your luggage is weighed, removed and subsequently taken to the aircraft and you do not see it again until arrival at your destination. A bus designated for your particular flight takes you out to Heathrow where you join your plane. Of course you pay for the bus ticket. This is a service of great benefit to passengers, particularly to mothers with families and those without private cars or money to pay for private transport to Heathrow. Any anxiety about catching a particular flight is removed.

In 1971, the number of passengers using the Terminal was 3,507,368 and of these 1,389,943 used the check-in facilities. Taking a very low average fare of, say, £50, the passengers actually using the check-in facilities brought in revenue of some £70 million. At discussions with B.E.A. in February I was told that 781,000 B.E.A. passengers were currently using these facilities. In addition, 582,000 foreign airline passengers were using them. That is a total of 1,363,000 passengers. The foreign airlines paid B.E.A. for that privilege. If we take the B.E.A. passengers alone at the same low average fare of £50, the revenue would approximate some £40 million. It seems to me quite extraordinary that a consumer service involving so many passengers who produce a revenue even now in excess of £40 million should be removed to save £500,000 per annum with the additional reason that other European airports do not offer such a service. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would agree with me, but surely B.E.A. exists to provide a service which is the best possible and not one of a lower level because that is what is offered elsewhere.

I come now to the second section of the story, the position in future as decided by B.E.A. Travellers will take a bus from the Terminal as at present, but they will not be able to check in, nor will they be able to do anything about their luggage. This will go on the bus with them. They and their luggage will be deposited at Heathrow. Thence, in the words of officialdom, they will be responsible for taking their luggage to the check-in point. Even more serious than the resultant chaos and lengthy queues is the problem of elderly and infirm travellers, of mothers and families, all on outward journeys with their 44 lb. of luggage.

I think I might stress here that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us that this reorganisation was being done for the convenience of passengers as a whole, as well as for the economic situation of B.E.A. I wonder if the noble Earl has seen the letters from businessmen in the Financial Times these last three Saturdays. None of the writers is known to me personally. Mr. Steiner writes of the inconvenience to travellers and the greater number of lightly loaded cars and taxis on the road. Mr. Carlton is astonished that businessmen were not consulted and adds: Meanwhile B.E.A. continue to bombard us with costly advertising about their extension of facilities (with apologies to Alan Whicker) while m reality the reverse, or, let us say, further contraction of the traveller's few real facilities is actually taking place. Mr. Jaspert declares: In its obsession with advertising the merits of Alan Whicker, B.E.A. through its public relations director … explains to your readers "— that is the Financial Times' readers— that 'no other major city in Europe provides the check-in service' that is being lamented.

Mr. Jaspert tells us that at Frankfurt and Paris rail services are available, with trains running to schedule, and he concludes: B.E.A.'s slogan should rather read 'In the best interests of B.E.A.'—the services are no longer in the best interests of passengers, or United Kingdom taxpayers who will be ex- patted to bail B.E.A. out should the air line lose custom—or revenue.

I would suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that those are important letters from the business community.

My Lords, the House will remember the noble Earl's telling us on several occasions how simple it all would be, and that passengers would only have to walk 20 paces from the roadside to the check-in at Heathrow. Leaving aside the difficulty of doing this with 44 1b. of luggage, the noble Earl did not ask the right questions on his visit. Personally, I could hardly credit the implications of the B.E.A. proposal when I saw for myself at Heathrow in January. If we imagine the Table in this Chamber as being the Terminal building, the B.E.A. buses were to drive along where my noble friend is sitting on the Front Bench, and as the doors open on the left hand side of the bus, passengers would alight on that side of the road. Their luggage would be deposited with them. There was no cover at all: and we do get rain in England. Somehow (and I hope the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, can follow my example) the passengers would then have had to cross the road to the terminal building—with their luggage. It happens to be a very busy road. The survivors of this exercise would then have had to take Lord Ferrer's 20 paces. I could only assume that the plan had been worked out at a B.E.A. desk by someone who had never been to the actual spot. That, I thought, was the kindest assumption.

The House will realise that the job of implementing any such changes would fall on the British Airports Authority. They were not even consulted. In July the chairman wrote to me referring (and I quote) to a situation which we had not expected and about which we were not consulted. I believe that he wrote to the Government in even stronger terms, but I have not seen that letter. Anyway, the British Airports Authority found the scheme unworkable, and we have another one. B.E.A. buses will now deposit passengers and luggage at a lower level—near where they get off now, as a matter of fact. A lift and an escalator are being installed so that everyone can get to the check-in level on the floor above. I leave the House to contemplate the problems of passengers, children, the elderly and infirm, all with luggage and all there at the same time, getting into the lift or mounting the escalator. I understand that the cost will be £140,000 plus £60,000 per annum.

Now, my Lords, the bus service decided upon by B.E.A. On July 20 (I am sure he will remember) the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told me that I was under a misapprehension in concerning myself about the possibility of passengers missing their flight and their holiday. He said, at column 871: … because when the new system comes into operation at the West London Air Terminal buses will leave every ten minutes to Terminal 1 and every ten minutes to Terminal 2. It will be stated at the town terminal which is the latest bus the passengers may catch for the flight on which they are booked, and they are therefore guaranteed to catch that flight. I would ask the House to note, and the noble Earl to remember, that last phrase, "they are therefore guaranteed to catch that flight." On my last visit to B.E.A., in February, I was told that not only would buses carry no guarantee for any particular flight, however early people chose to leave Gloucester Road, but—a point of view which seemed to be incredible—this would mean that everyone was on equal terms: those using buses from the Terminal and those using private transport to get to Heathrow. That seems a sad reflection by an organisation offering service to the consumer.

My Lords, finding it impossible to get through to officials the anxiety that would be caused to passengers by the worry that they might miss their plane and by the many problems arising therefrom, I really was amazed by the answer that I got for my efforts: "Oh! we allow them to use their ticket if they do miss their plane." Perhaps your Lordships will supply some answers to that one.

In desperation, I raised three brief points for consideration. First, being told the reason that non-guarantee was because buses ran late and flights were delayed, I asked for any figures that B.E.A. might have relating to such delays. None were available. For my own part, although planes on which I have travelled are frequently late in departure from Heathrow, never once has this been because my bus from Gloucester Road has been late. Secondly, as no figures were available. I asked whether it would not be possible to defer the actual dec- ision until after this summer when it could be ascertained what delays had occurred. The answer was, "No". The third point was: could we not await the rail link in 1976 so that it could then be seen how many passengers used the rail link in preference to what is, at present anyway, a service on the buses? The answer to this was, "No".

Following these three refusals, there was one small additional point: whether the buses could not depart from Gloucester Road early enough to guarantee catching a plane. I think we all know that however early that might be, it would save passengers needless anxiety. I am sure the House can guess the answer to that one. B.E.A. plainly do not understand the worry of ordinary people going on ordinary holidays.

This, my Lords, brings me to the last point of these discussions held in January, and February: the rail link in 1976. This we were able to discuss with London Transport two weeks ago. The responsibility for carrying passengers rests with them. I find the story more and more incredible, and I hope the House finds it incredible, too. In common with most people, I had assumed that this rail link was to service passengers from the airport—all passengers. That surely was the object of the exercise. Perhaps it would be better just to relate quite simply what seems to be the position and leave the House to comment.

This rail link will be an extension of the ordinary Piccadilly Line, with which it will link at Hounslow West The trains will consist of six cars instead of the present seven, each being slightly longer than the present ones, and a train will have seating accommodation for 264 passengers. Frequency will vary from 15 an hour at peak periods to 12 or 8 at other times. There will be a slightly larger luggage section than we are accustomed to at present (I am referring to that part where train guards now stand) and these trains will fit into the normal running of the line from Hounslow West, with the customary brief stop at each station. They will of course pick up and deposit commuter traffic from stations. I wondered first of all how passengers would be able to collect their baggage (44 lb. tourist at least) from the pile at the end of the car and get out on to the desired platform fast enough not to impede the normal running of our Tube trains. The answer was that these trains are not intended for passengers with luggage. This has never been envisaged. Only air travellers with hand luggage will be able to use this service. There will be no porters to help anywhere.

My second wonder was whether there would be notices at Heathrow telling air travellers that the facilities—if that be the right description—were available for passengers with hand luggage only. I gathered not. My third wonder was how foreign passengers, those with hand luggage only although this might not be I appreciated by them at the time, were to know where they should alight from these trains. Our tourist industry is expanding, and certainly the airborne side is increasing rapidly: what were complete strangers to London expected to do? Apparently there will be an inquiry office near the ticket office at Heathrow where passengers can seek advice. I leave that to your Lordships with one comment—if we have Jumbos and TriStars arriving regularly, there will be quite a crowd at that inquiry office.

My fourth wonder, and I am sure that the House will agree that "wonder" is the best word, was whether any station would be thought specially suitable for our visitors. A suggestion that perhaps taxis might be available at Hyde Park Corner is being looked at while South Kensington and Covent Garden are also receiving consideration. No other facility would be offered and it seems to have been overlooked that we Londoners might take the taxis.

Instead of a fifth wonder I should like to make a comment. There will of course be no facilities at any of these stations for air travellers going out to Heathrow with luggage. And I imagine they are likely to find the trains full at peak hours and holiday periods. My Lords, I think that Parliament cannot allow such an attitude to continue. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. I find it incredible—and derisory. I am hoping that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull will be dealing further with the rail link when he comes to speak.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point—and I apologise for interrupting—did the point come up in the conversation as to how the passengers were to get to the trains at Heathrow from No. 1, 2 or 3 terminals?

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

My Lords, it would only be fair to say that I did not pursue that. I gather that would be the responsibility of the British Airports Authority and London Transport; I have only dealt with this end of it and have not looked into that; I was so concerned with the Underground. I think I know the answer, but I am not sure.

I come now to section 3—the way in which B.E.A. has conducted this operation. The Guardian on March 8 last stated, and I quote: B.E.A. is determined to close its passenger check-in facilities at the West London terminal by the end of the year, together with those of the 30 foreign airlines it handles, in spite of strong staff protest". My Lords, "determined" is correct. B.E.A. has been determined to do this from the outset, to do it unilaterally and without taking any notice of what might be said inside Parliament and outside by passengers, staff and unions; even to ignoring what was said by the Government. This attitude has been one of the tragedies of this whole affair. It was decided to push this through, to bulldoze any opposition, and now it is very difficult to save face and retreat.

I first raised this in the House on Tune 15 last. It is not a Party matter and all sides of the House have been disturbed ever since. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has had an impossible task and, as I said at the beginning, I am appreciative of the way in which he has tried to help. On June 15 we were told that the check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal would be discontinued for all flights by the summer of 1973, with phased implementation of this starting earlier that year The work done in this House, by all sides of the House, has pushed back that withdrawal at least until 1974. At this point I should like to say that the noble Lords, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, Lord Orr-Ewing, and Lord Moyne, have all sent best wishes for this debate. Each is out of the country at the moment. This really is an all-Party protest, and I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will realise that.

There is no need to weary your Lordships by detailing the Saga as we have continued from June 15 until to-day. But there are certain significant and, I think, alarming features. On August 4 the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us that in fact the decision to close the check-in facilities would be delayed until after the METRA Report was made. And on October 18 we were told that the Report was expected about the end of the year. But on October 10, completely ignoring this condition, the then chief executive of B.E.A. had made a statement, making no mention of the Metra Report, to the effect that B.E.A. had decided to withdraw the check-in facilities. Obviously this caused embarrassment and, I hope, anger on the Government side.

The Leader of the House, on being appealed to, came to the rescue and we had a Statement made by the Government. This was on October 19. In it B.E.A. said they had taken no decision. Their issue of B.E.A. News on October 12 devoted three pages to what they had decided. The retraction, I believe, merited one small paragraph. Neither in the House nor in their paper were any regrets expressed for what was, at best, a gross discourtesy.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I have been to see the British Airports Authority, B.E.A. and London Transport. The visit to B.E.A. took time to arrange—some three weeks in fact. When we did meet them on February 20 for what we had hoped was to be a discussion it appeared that the delay had been used to good purpose. We were presented with a fait accompli. Apparently B.E.A. had informed the Minister, were informing the unions the next day and making a public statement either that same day or the day after. So, once more, we were to have a statement even though the Metra Report had not been published. I think we had every right to be disturbed and the Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Heseltine) was good enough to see us at short notice the next day, February 21. This was much appreciated. It is not for me to interpret his feelings but it seemed that much of what we told him was news. He said there would be no statement the next day. And there was not. But that was not going to deter B.E.A. On that next day, Thursday, February 22, their chief executive met staff representatives and informed them that it was the management's intention to close down the check-in at West London Air Terminal by January 1, 1974. It think it is quite obvious that B.E.A. have been determined from the outset to go ahead with their unilateral decision and to ignore anyone else, whether this be passengers, staff, unions, Parliament or the Government.

I come now to the last section—the position of the consumer as air traveller. May I stress here that I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of any decision taken but solely with what I believe to be a serious aspect in this affair—the position of the consumer. The whole House, I am sure, agrees with the proposition that consumers have a right to be heard. It is one of the main planks of the Government's policy that claims of consumers should be considered. In this matter, if we take passengers alone, we had a figure of 3,507,368 passengers using the Terminal of which 1,389,943 used the check-in facilities. This was in 1971 and the figures were given to the House in June, 1972. The latest figure I have from B.E.A. is 1,363,000 using the facilities.

What I want to emphasise to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is that what has concerned us all has been the query, "To whom can these passengers refer their problem?" The House will recall that we raised this point on several occasions but that we have never had a satisfactory reply. Obviously it is no use suggesting that they should write to the organisations concerned, as did the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on June 29 last. I have been pursuing this for 10 months, with the advantages of a Parliamentary platform. We have B.E.A. and/or British Airways; we have the British Airports Authority and we have the Civil Aviation Authority. I want to know which of these bodies is responsible for hearing a complaint made on behalf of millions of the travelling public. Or do we refer it to Sir Geoffrey Howe or to the Parliamentary Commissioner as a case of maladministration in a Government Department's approving such a scheme?

Numbers do not make a principle any more of a principle, but when so many people are involved the affair surely becomes one of national and public interest. On this particular point I should like to bring in the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who assured me that he would have spoken to-day had he been able to be here. On June 29 he asked at what point public interest is so great that the Government should take action and when it is a matter entirely for day-to-day administration. Without passing any opinion on the decision arrived at, the noble Lord asked if this were not something on which Her Majesty's Government might well consider giving a directive, as they have power to do under the Act. We are, after all, speaking of millions of passengers.

Time and again we have been told two things: first, that people should write to B.E.A., and secondly, that this is a commercial decision and therefore B.E.A. were entitled to take a unilateral decision. I would repeat, I am on the merits of neither point. Writing to B.E.A. would be useless, but who decided the second one? Who decided that this was purely a commercial decision? Who heard the consumers' side and decided that their complaint was not a valid one? The Question we are debating to-day asks for an inquiry into these problems. I submit to the House that I have made my case. In view of what has now come to light I would ask for deferment of the suggested withdrawal of check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal in 1974. It seems to me obvious that no Government could sanction what I have spoken about to-day. Surely we must wait and see how the rail link develops before other services are curtailed. I hope this House. Parliament and the Government will agree to deferment until 1976, when the rail link is to come into service.

7.54 p.m.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Baroness this evening for the very pungent, and indeed convincing, way she has put her Question on the future of the check-in facilities at the West London Air Terminal. The manner of her advocacy over the last 10 months has shown her remarkable Parliamentary skill and a relentless, almost single-handed determination to do battle and to champion consumers' interests against heavy odds. I am sure she has won many admirers from all sides of the House, if not supporters. I am sure also that my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who has steadfastly been the luckless Government foil throughout the numerous Parliamentary exchanges, would agree that the efforts of the noble Baroness have already achieved a measure of success, albeit a limited success. However it is a success which clearly does not satisfy the noble Baroness. The battle with B.E.A. which has been carried on by the noble Baroness has much in common with the epic struggle of David and Goliath, and if I were asked to comment on how that struggle was going to date I would venture to suggest that the noble Baroness is ahead on points.

The subject which the noble Baroness has raised so powerfully and eloquently to-night touches, I believe, on two aspects. The first is the consumers' interests and what say they have, or should have, in the running of a nationalised airline. The second, on which I should like briefly to comment, is the growing problem of preserving an adequate standard of communication in future between Heathrow and Central London. When one sees the political cloud hovering over the Maplin Sands project, one senses that the problem of Heathrow traffic could well be with us far beyond 1980.

Having attended a number of the meetings to which the noble Baroness referred, with the British Airports Authority, London Transport and indeed B.E.A., I am the more convinced than ever that the issue of preserving an adequate and tolerable standard of communication is a matter worthy of a carefully detailed Government study, and indeed would be compatible with the study already made by the Metra Report, which of course was concerned only with the immediate surrounds of Heathrow.

There are three aspects of the issue which I believe clearly demonstrate that there is no room for complacency if these standards are to be maintained between Europe's No. 1 airport and Europe's No. 1 capital city. The first is the present inadequacy of the M.4 motorway which, from all accounts, at peak periods has already reached saturation point, and there is apparently nothing in the programme to improve it. I refer particularly, of course, to the Hammersmith Flyover and the Chiswick Flyover. Whatever may be said about the virtue of the proposed rail link, I think these virtues need examining. The motorway will remain the most important communication link between Heathrow and London for many years to come, and I think it is a matter of real concern that no positive steps for improvement appear in the pipeline.

The second aspect is the inadequacy of the present plans for the new rail link, to which the noble Baroness referred. I say "the inadequacy" advisedly, because London Transport themselves have admitted that the concept planning of the service is purely an extension of their underground network, ideal for the commuter, ideal for the businessman on a short trip, but hell for a family returning with five suitcases from a 14-day holiday, disorientated by the flight and unfamiliar with the Underground of London. And it will be purgatory for the sick, the aged or the crippled who, as the noble Baroness has said, will be offered neither assistance with porters for their luggage nor terminals for a bus connection or taxi ranks in Central London. In my view, both these things need examination. The mind boggles as to how the luckless air traveller on his way to Heathrow with suitcases and young children will manage at, for instance, Piccadilly Underground in the rush hour. The present planning for this service seems to be geared for only one sector of air travellers using Heathrow, and despite the much heralded new rolling stock and the high frequency of trains, on which no doubt my noble friend will be able to advise us, the service as planned so far will clearly not meet a sufficient standard of service which all air travellers could enjoy.

The third aspect of this issue, and one which I sense worries the British Airports Authority, although I am in no way quoting them, is the sheer physical limitation of both Terminal 1 and Terminal 2. Neither was designed to cater for the volume of traffic it handles to-day, or the extra volume that it will need to handle in future years. Any additional pressure on these terminals clearly increases the difficulties of the British Airports Authority. This is in itself a good reason why I believe that a study should be set in motion to examine the total picture before the decision by B.E.A., which could aggravate the terminal problems, is implemented. One has to remember that one is talking of an additional 20 per cent. of the passengers who will need to be accommodated for the check-in facilities at the Terminal if the present terminal arrangements at Cromwell Road are cancelled.

Since B.E.A. first announced their decision to withdraw their check-in facilities, and to do so by the summer of this year, one of the most intriguing aspects of the saga has been exactly what powers the Government have to intervene in the issue. B.E.A., I suspect, consider that the decision is entirely a matter for themselves. In that, I have some sympathy—their decision is based, as we know, on a commercial judgment of reducing costs and of improving punctuality. They are set a stiff financial target every year of making some 14 per cent. on their capital. But the B.E.A. decision is linked with the package of running additional and more frequent bus services—to appease the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, I believe. These services are operated under contract to B.E.A. by London Transport on a cost-plus basis. What happens if those buses start to make a loss? Will that service be cut and will the same commercial arguments of reducing losses be applied? The answer will undoubtedly be in favour of a commercial consideration.

Another effect of this decision is that 27 other foreign airlines will be affected by the B.E.A. decision. All of them will have to arrange alternative facilities at the already inadequate Terminal 2. I have heard it said—and I hope that it is not in my noble friend's brief—that the use of the check-in facilities at Cromwell Road are on a sharp decline and have been so over the past five years. I believe that the figures the noble Baroness quoted, and which she obtained from B.E.A., will dispose of that argument.

There is yet one other factor to which I should like to draw attention; that is, the value of the present check-in facilities at times of fog conditions. Anyone who experienced the chaos caused to air travel by the ten days of fog just after Christmas, and who were able to check in at Cromwell Road rather than join the struggle of the over-crowded airport, will appreciate the value of these facilities. The facilities at Cromwell Road during that period acted as a safety valve for both passengers and the airport management, who were stretched to their limits.

The case for setting up a study to examine passenger problems, as suggested by the noble Baroness in her Question, is, I believe, overwhelming. Its real value would be that it would bring together not only B.E.A., all the other airlines, the British Airports Authority and the Minister of the Aerospace Department, but also the Department of the Environment, London Transport and the G.L.C. The problem needs coordinating and, at present, one senses a lack of co-ordination.

As to B.E.A.'s own position, I have little doubt that they could be persuaded to postpone their decision yet again if they saw positive action being taken to resolve this problem, for I believe that they are as anxious as anyone that the M.4 should be improved. So far as I am aware, the Government have, as yet, never confirmed their approval of B.E.A.'s decision. I am encouraged by that and hope that my noble friend, if he can do nothing more to-day, will be able to say to the noble Baroness that the arguments used in this debate will be taken away and considered on their merits. Should this be so, and should an inquiry be set up, I for one would certainly wish to put in a request that the Terminal should be re-named the "Burton Terminal" as a fitting memory to the noble Baroness's epic struggle, a struggle in which she has struck a splendid blow for the consumers' interest.

Finally, I fear that I must apologise to the House for the discourtesy of having to leave before the end of this debate owing to a previous unavoidable engagement.

8.5 p.m.

EARL AMHERST

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for instituting this Unstarred Question. I feel I can rely on her well known generosity and amiability and that she will not be too put out if I do not follow her completely, as I do not agree with everything she has to say. Records show that in about 1953 the peak traffic using the West London Air Terminal as a check-in point represented something like 55 per cent. of B.E.A.'s total traffic, including the traffic of those airlines which it handles in London. To-day, I am told, this percentage has fallen to 20 per cent. and is still dwindling. Further, the majority of the airlines that B.E.A. is handling are said to be very much in favour of the new move of closing the check-in point at the West London Air Terminal. In fact, they do not want their passengers to continue using the Terminal as a check-in point. With the exception of the B.O.A.C. terminal in Buckingham Palace Road and the Aer Lingus Terminal which has recently been closed, there is no other major city in this country or in Europe that uses the town terminal as a check-in point. I am credibly informed that B.O.A.C. are merely waiting for sufficient cubic space in their building at Heathrow to install more check-in desks before they intend to follow B.E.A.'s example and stop checking in at Buckingham Palace Road. You cannot check in in the town terminal in New York City, in Los Angeles or in San Francisco—which are the only airports I have recently visited; but I am credibly informed that this is the case with every other major city in the United States and Canada. It is certainly true in the Middle East, the Far East, Australia and Africa and I cannot think that they are all wrong Surely they cannot all be wrong.

It has been suggested, and very much emphasised by the noble Baroness, that the move from the West London Air Terminal will present greater difficulties for old people, old ladies and old gentlemen like me with uncertain legs and heavy baggage. It is likely, however, that the distance they may have to walk from the bus, the taxi or coach that sets them down at the West London Terminal will be less, but not considerably less, than the distance they will have to negotiate from their bus, taxi or coach at the airport when the new arrangements come into effect. In both places there will be, and are, porters to take care of heavy baggage and to help passengers who are having trouble in that connection. That will go on. But at the West London Air Terminal, as I am sure noble Lords will remember, and I am certain that the noble Baroness will remember, when you have to board your bus to go to Heathrow you have always had to negotiate those fearfully steep staircases leading from the checking-in floor to the boarding level. It is true that by checking in you have already got rid of your heavy baggage, so that all you are concerned with is struggling with your hand baggage; but I personally have always grabbed a tight hold of the rails and banisters and climbed down those terrible staircases with the greatest caution. In the No. 1 building at Heathrow, as it will be reconstituted, there will be, as the noble Baroness has said, escalators, lifts and staircases, but the staircases will be used only in an emergency, when other things break down. It seems as if the new arrangement at Heathrow will not cause such a great disservice to passengers as may at first have been thought.

There is one aspect, however, which the noble Baroness again pointed out, the absence of which facility may cause us some pain. As things are now, once you have hoarded your bus you are rid of your heavy luggage, and you no longer have any worries about catching your flight as the flight will await the arrival of the bus; sometimes this means the delay of the flight. Some 20 per cent. of passengers check in at West London Air Terminal. That means that sonic 80 per cent. check in at Heathrow. If the bus is delayed those 80 per cent. who have checked in at Heathrow and got there in time to complete their formalities and board their aircraft, will be held up awaiting the arrival of the bus from West London Air Terminal.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Earl, because he did not interrupt me and I had a good innings. I will not comment on his earlier remarks, but may I ask him whether he is aware that B.E.A. have no figures for late arrivals of buses causing delay in flights? When I have been out my bus has never been late. I hope that is not a hostage to fortune!

EARL AMHERST

My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention by the noble Baroness, because I was going on to say that my experience is not as fortunate as hers. I have been held up in that bus two or three times, especially when those wretched tunnels which go through the central part of the airport are out of use. What that means is that these 80 per cent. of passengers are held up waiting for the bus. This is particularly vexatious to them when they are on short-haul or if they have very tight connections to make at the other end. Further, there is operational difficulty. On short-haul operation nearly all aircraft during the day carry out more than one flight, so that if there is a late departure from Heathrow that echoes all down the line and all other flights become later and later as the day goes on.

With the new arrangements the buses are to leave West London Air Terminal regularly, probably at intervals of 12 to 15 minutes at peak period, but they will not be scheduled to meet any particular flight. Consequently, the flight's departure will not be any longer held up to wait for the bus. The passengers who still want to use West London Air Terminal to catch buses to the airport are to be informed of the last departure time at which they can catch a bus to get them there in time for their flight from London Airport. The noble Baroness made some point of this. On the many times that I have taken buses from Amsterdam or Zurich or Frankfurt I have had no difficulty or worry about catching the aeroplane. You catch any bus you want to. You can go as early as you like; nobody stops you.

Furthermore, the concourse at West London Air Terminal is to be redesigned and will be at ground level, on the same level as the buses. So you will need only to walk out of your taxi or private car and across to the bus; there will be no staircase to negotiate.

Now that 80 per cent. of people travel to Heathrow, it rather looks to me as if that is what they want, and these new arrangements seem to meet the majority requirement. They may not entirely meet everyone's requirements, but they seem designed to do so. Of course, there will be a minority who do not agree; it would not be human nature if this were not so.

Although it has been announced that the whole of this problem lies outside the terms of reference of the Metra Report, I think it might be valuable to remember that in one of its paragraphs, paragraph 31, on page 23, it says: As far as Heathrow is concerned, the withdrawal of check-in facilities from West London Air Terminal should not cause any new problems to passengers. I think the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the congestion we shall get in a year or two only lend force to the argument that we must get Maplin Sands airport built as soon as possible, because without it the congestion will be frightful, whatever way the traffic is arranged.

It only remains for me to say that I think the whole House is very grateful to the noble Baroness for persisting in giving such a good hearing to these problems. But I now suggest that we have come to the point where we might close our files on this particular subject, and perhaps press on to other matters.

8.16 p.m.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said in his opening remarks that he was not going to agree with all the points made by the noble Baroness. It seems to me he has not agreed with one single suggestion she made. When he talks about facilities at Kennedy Airport, let us remember that that airport was laid out in what I would call a sensible way, the individual terminals round the perimeter track. I do not want to cause any offence to noble Lords on the opposite Benches, but when London Airport was built I well remember going down there with the late Lord Winster, who was the Minister—he turned over the first sod of soil on January 1, 1946, and it was frozen ground. The Attlee Government at that time were determined to get this airport up regardless of what was going on elsewhere in the world. It has been a disaster, in my view, with the runways and every building inside the centre of that airport; every bag of cement has to go through the tunnels for new building, and there is no space. There are very definite problems which we have to live with for ever. I do not want to be disrespectful, but I think London Airport, Heathrow, is a lasting monument to Socialism and how not to do something on that scale.

Having said that, I think the whole House, and many thousands of passengers, must be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, who has introduced this debate. She has made a study of it. She has asked dozens of questions and given up time, and I think by and large she has had "dusty answers" from B.E.A. and has not been given quite the respect or information she was seeking.

The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, referred to the METRA report. I have read the report and it is quite a good one, probably very expensive. But why did not the terms of reference include something to do with the West London Air Terminal? That was excluded completely from the report. They referred to it, but only very slightly. I think that should have been gone into. When the noble Earl says that only 20 per cent. of B.E.A. passengers use the air terminal, I would say that 20 per cent. is a very large minority when you are dealing with the numbers involved. And I rather question the figure; it may well be higher than 20 per cent. But, of course, not all the passengers come from the centre of London. It is just as well they do not. They come from the South and the Midlands and the West Country. It could never be 100 per cent.

I would pay my tribute to the staff at the Air Terminal and at Heathrow for the splendid job they have done under extreme difficulties over the years. The B.E.A. terminal had very excessive teething problems in its early days. Most of these have been overcome. The decision to close this terminal in Kensington is disastrous. We cannot compare our facilities with those of other nations. I have driven out from Zurich many times nonstop. If the traffic problem of getting down the Cromwell Road and out through Knightsbridge were solved, that would be another story, but it is a very acute problem in this enormous city of ours. If the terminal is closed, I question very much whether Terminals 1 and 2 will be able to cope with the traffic. For example, I have been over the years going backwards and forwards to Switzerland, fortunately using my own transport. One is decanted by a little shelter in the middle of two roads; you get your luggage out and then dodge the buses and the traffic between yourself and the main building, in inclement weather, rain, snow, storms. It is a work of art to get across if you are agile, but if old and infirm people are trying to do this I do not know how they cope.

When the noble Earl winds up, I should like him to tell us whether it will be guaranteed that passengers will catch the aeroplane, after the terminal has been closed and they catch the buses there. The noble Earl who preceded me rather suggested that people should not have that privilege, but I think they should. During the last two years, London Airport has had each of the tunnels closed separately for something like eight months, and at peak hours there has sometimes been a mile queue of traffic to the West side of the Airport entrance, which made it absolutely impossible for passengers to get through and people in their own transport had to leave an hour earlier. Passengers cannot be treated like cattle. They have paid their fare—frequently, a very expensive fare—for the service which they expect to get, and they should be given that assurance. Will the traffic connect up with the departing aeroplane? Even METRA, referring to Terminal 2, state in their Report: It is likely that the current check-in capacity will be exceeded at times. We are told that closing the terminal will save something like £500,000 a year. The noble Baroness Lady Burton referred to the capital cost of putting in escalators and lifts, and to the annual cost of operating them, but how on earth are people to get their baggage up either an escalator or in a lift? It is bad enough to do that in a hotel, and most hotels have separate lifts for baggage. But to try and do it at London Airport, with children, on package tours, will be absolutely impossible.

The noble Earl referred to B.O.A.C. and said that they will probably follow suit. That is the first I have heard of it and I should like confirmation from the Minister on this point, because the terminal at Victoria is a very well run show indeed. In fact, B.O.A.C. is probably the best run airline in the world. I wish I could say the same of B.E.A., but I am not able to do so. But if B.O.A.C. are to follow suit, why not do so now? The two airlines are merged as British Airways, so let them both operate from Kensington. The building is there, it belongs to the taxpayers, so let us use it for the next five years, see how we get along with the railway extension—if we do at all—and then look at this problem again. But arbitrarily to make the decision that has been made is completely wrong. I think that B.O.A.C. are too wise to make a quick decision on this matter. They go out to give the passengers service. It is not a question of saying that B.O.A.C. passengers pay a far greater sum for their tickets than B.E.A. passengers, because some B.E.A. passengers fly out to Beirut, Turkey and elsewhere, which is very expensive. So I hope that this matter can be considered in the light of an extension with the two airlines, now British Airways, using the building in West Kensington for a given period.

Then, the forecourt of Terminal 1 will be worsened by B.E.A.'s decision. In this country we never apply our technology to the design of buses for use at airports. In America, and certainly in Switzerland, the buses are very low-level with places to put the baggage, and they are designed for what they are meant to do. But we put on a normal charabanc or, in this case, a double-decker with a trailer swinging about all over the place. Surely, the baggage ought to be integrated and part of the bus. The buses which are at present in use might be forty years old. B.E.A. have had their problems over the years and they have been remarkably successful, considering the problems they have had. Their timekeeping has improved out of all knowledge in the last two years. But they still have some way to go to catch up with the service which has been given by their competitors. I suggest that, not only at the terminal but elsewhere during their transit, the passengers of B.E.A. should be treated with far more consideration. When delays take place, there is a lack of communication in informing passengers what is going on, although B.E.A. are not alone in that respect.

The Secretary of State has powers to intervene in this matter. I know that he would be reluctant to use them, but there are occasions with a nationalised industry—and we have seen them in the last two years—when the Secretary of State has to intervene. But, surely, this is not a matter which should ever get to the Secretary of State. A commercial organisation ought to see what is right and what is wrong. I hope that my noble friend will not close the door on, this problem, but will allow a longer period to see how we get along with the modernisation of the M.4; will wait until the railway is put in; and will see how the merger of the two airlines works out. Finally, I again congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for the trouble she has taken, and I am sure she will have the gratitude of a great many thousands of passengers for what she has said.

8.26 p.m.

BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY

My Lords, it is rather late, but unfortunately a wild beast has been loose in the House of Lords this afternoon and it always takes a long time to put it back to bed again, so that this immensely important subject has been left until now. I am sure that all of us who have remained behind feel not only that it is important but that we owe it to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, to have done so, for the assiduity with which she has pursued this subject in the interests of the consumer. In saving a very few words this evening, I really have a vested interest as being both aged and infirm—though not antique—because I have a bad back and I am not supposed to carry anything. When one thinks back to the old days—there are not so many people who can remember as far back as I can—one went to Victoria Station and bought a ticket to anywhere. If one was cautious, one reserved a seat on the train. There were plenty of porters and on the train one could get up and stretch one's legs. There were also meals in comfort. One could look at the landscape or read a book, and travel was very leisurely and pleasant. Then we started on air travel and, in the first few years, were treated individually as jewels of great value; we were cherished and looked after almost as though we were going to have a serious operation—which so many people who were nervous at that time thought they were.

All that cherishing seems to me to have disappeared. We are now treated as one of the herd; we are strapped into our seats, with three seats on each side, like sardines in a tin. We are looked after to a certain degree, but what people of my age and infirmity need are plenty of porters, plenty of trolleys and easy ways to get about, instead of which we may have to walk along three-quarters of a mile of slippery corridors, carrying our handbags and, if we are sufficiently improvident, presents which we have bought for our family. Then, by the time we arrive at where the luggage is turning on the roundabout, the more agile members of the group will have collected their baggage and all the trolleys will have gone. So it is time that B.E.A. thought more about the comfort of the people for whom they cater, as well as about their economic situation.

There are some little problems which could be put right very easily, if only B.E.A. would put their minds to them, for example, seeing that trolleys are where people get out of the aeroplane at the beginning of those long corridors, rather than at the other end—assuming there are any trolleys left. Little things like that are matters of administration which seem to have been overlooked. The noble Lord who has just spoken suggested that the two airlines, which are amalgamated, should combine at South Kensington. I do not see why they cannot combine at Victoria Station. I am told that it is impossible to enlarge the building, but I do not believe it. There you would have the railway, the tube, the buses and the air terminal all adjacent. It seems to me the most sensible thing to do, and if it is necessary to pull down the building at the back, then why not do that? I do not know whether that has been considered. I am told it is impossible: I do not believe anything is impossible if you really try.

The long and the short of this will be that if B.E.A. does not consider its passengers more than it has done in the past, people will travel by other lines. Personally, I prefer, if I can, to travel by Caledonian, or one of the foreign airlines. This surely cannot be good for the future of B.E.A. I am not going to keep the House any longer because the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, has put all the arguments forward so very forcibly; but I would plead for the aged and the infirm, that something should be done to make their travelling pleasurable again.

8.31 p.m.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, for introducing this matter. Having listened to all her representations over the last few months and to the frankly rather inadequate answers from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—but I do not blame him for that—I should have thought that the case for the retention of the check-in facilities at Gloucester Road was now made and that we ought not to hear any more nonsense about their withdrawal. The question is: how are we to persuade the B.E.A. management that this is so? They appear to me to have been grossly discourteous to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, and indeed to the various other noble Lords who have visited them on occasions, having made all sorts of assertions about what they were going to do and when they were going to do it.

Clearly there is an overwhelming public demand for the retention of these facilities, and it is their duty, as what was once quaintly called "the chosen instrument of British civil aviation policy", to maintain these facilities and not to go ahead with their closure. The question is, as I have said: how are we to persuade them that this is so? My reading of the 1971 Civil Aviation Act is that the Government do not in fact have power to direct the British Airways Board to postpone or dispense with the proposed closure, or at least the proposed withdrawal of facilities. But surely it is not beyond the wit of the Minister to find some means of leaning on the Board to bring about this state of affairs, and I very much hope that to-night the Government, through the noble Earl, will loudly declare that they are against the withdrawal of these facilities and that they hope the British Airways Board will not proceed with it. I cannot then imagine that the Board will have the gall to go ahead. If they do, there are surely still means by which the Government can bring further pressures to bear to bring about the desired end.

My Lords, the question we have to consider is whether the wish of Parliament as expressed in the 1971 Act is really being carried out by the Airways Board, and bearing in mind the constant exchanges which have gone on in this House, and indeed in another place, I think that the wish of Parliament in this matter is now clearly established. I have nothing further to add except to say that the present facilities for passenger transportation to London Airport, even with the check-in facilities at West London, are really not very good. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said more eloquently than I can that the motorway facilities out to the West are badly overstretched, particularly at peak hours and having listened to the noble Baroness I think it is clear that the extension of the Piccadilly Line right into the centre of London Airport will be no solution, Having said that, I hope that now, at long last, we shall have some satisfaction from the noble Earl.

8.34 p.m.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE

My Lords, I shall try to be as brief as possible at this time of night, but like everybody else it would be impossible to speak on this subject without congratulating my noble friend most warmly on the way that she has, over a long period, been sticking to her guns and fighting not merely for the interests of the travelling public but, I believe, in the national interest, too. My Lords, most of us who have followed this long saga, as she has described it, have indeed felt at times rather sorry for the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because every time he has darted down some bolt-hole she has gone after him like a terrier and brought him back again—rather like in our discussion on the Badgers Bill. At one point, indeed, the noble Earl was reduced to saying that he hoped the noble Baroness would travel more often because when she did the word seemed to get around and there were more porters and travel facilities available. Indeed, he could be forgiven, perhaps, for hoping that she might remain in a kind of perpetual transit, rather like the "Flying Dutchman", but perhaps it would be unwise of me to suggest that.

My Lords, we understand the noble Earl's difficulties. Of course we accept that nationalised industries must be allowed to get on with the day-to-day management. There is no question about that: we all accept it. But it is quite clear, having listened to everything that has been said to-day and that has been said before, that this transcends that issue. This really is a bigger issue, and I am bound to say, in a non-political spirit, that I think Her Majesty's Government should have given a bolder and stronger lead to B.E.A. I think that the whole psychology of B.E.A. in this matter, their whole approach, has been quite wrong. It has been perfectly clear to all of us from the very beginning of the conflict that B.E.A. have been absolutely determined to close the Terminal, whatever anybody said or did, including the Government. They "jumped the gun" on the Government, not once but twice. They have made it absolutely clear that it is their wish that matters, and not that of the consumers.

My Lords, I think most of us, when we travel by air, prefer to use a British airline. Perhaps wrongly, most of us feel safer. We certainly feel more at home, and we feel that we are supporting out own industry and our own people. But in spite of that B.E.A.'s attitude should not be, "What will the customers put up with?" but, "How can we attract more of them?" That is what we, and I hope the Government, will try to put over to B.E.A. about the whole of this question. My noble friend referred to the letter in the Financial Times from B.E.A.'s public relations director in which he said—and my noble friend did not quote the first phrase, which is interesting, I think: Granted that our decision to abolish check-in at our West London air terminal may be wrong. Might I nevertheless point out…that no other major city in Europe provides the check-in service …". et cetera. This seems to me to be a completely wrong attitude. If other countries do not provide that service, why does not B.E.A. go out and provide it in order to attract the customers? That seems to me to be the right approach to the matter. I was absolutely horrified, as I am sure almost everybody in the House was, by what the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said about B.O.A.C. It is an appalling thought that they may close down that extremely convenient terminal in Victoria. I very much hope that he is wrong, and that we may have some assurance from the noble Earl on that subject.

I should just like the House to look at this advertisement which I cut out of last week's Observer. This is Pan Am's advertisement, and it says: When you go first class with Pan Am you come first". One of its main points of attraction is as follows: Our terminal is in the centre of London at Victoria. There you can park your car cheaply, check in, have a coffee or a snack, buy your duty-free, or simply watch television. We'll drive you to the airport". This is the first point they give for attracting customers. I checked with Pan Am, and found that this relates not only to first-class travellers; it applies to tourist class as well. On the telephone this morning I found that B.O.A.C. were extremely proud that they, too, have a check-in at the centre point. I even telephoned Trans-World to see what they did. I said, "If I check in at Kensington, will I have to get out my tickets again and my luggage, and so on?", and they said, "No, madam, you need not think of your luggage again until you arrive at New York". Is this not the spirit in which B.E.A. ought to be tackling the same problem? This is what the passengers want. Why should they not have it? Above all, why should not B.E.A. go out and try to get it?

To-day I happened to rear B.E.A.'s News Magazine, which contained an account of a B.E.A. North Europe Regional Annual Conference at which Mr. Pinfield, the general manager, said that he expected B.E.A. to push its profits from £3.2 million to over £5 million next year and this presumably includes the saving of £600,000 made on the Terminal. Well, that is very estimable. He went on to say that he had a four point plan for B.E.A.'s success. His second I point was, more competitive programmes, less related to the pool concept and more related to what B.E.A. could go out and do. My Lords, if that is what B.E.A. really plan to do, why on earth are they closing down this Terminal which serves 1½ million passengers? The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, said that only 20 per cent. of the people travelled in this way, but the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave us the figure of between 24 and 25 per cent. I will not quarrel with the actual figures. But even so, it is 1½ million people. Some of these people travel this way by choice—I do myself—and some of them because they cannot afford a taxi and have not got a private car; and this service ought to be kept up. Most regrettably—because I still prefer to travel by B.E.A. if I can—we must accept that throughout this business they have behaved in a most high-handed and authoritarian manner and there has been little thought for the passengers or even for the Government. Worse than that, my Lords, as my noble friend has said, they have had consultations with no one. One wonders whether they have consulted with the Government's own Minister for Consumer Affairs? They certainly have not consulted with the staff. Only last Friday there was a strike by porters and traffic control staff, a token strike of 12 hours, in protest at B.E.A.'s decision to stop check-in facilities at the Terminal.

My Lords, this is not the way for any great industry to run its affairs, and I do beg the noble Earl when he answers my noble friend to consider all these aspects which have been put to him so clearly. I will not go through the arguments again; we all know them; we know the plight of the elderly and infirmed; we know what it is like. I once asked the noble Earl whether he had ever carried two bags in one hand and a baby on the other arm and he said that he had. Looking at him it is quite clear that he could probably manage triplets, but we are not all of us magnificent Cold-streamers, even if we are "second to none", and we cannot manage all that up escalators, into lifts and the rest. I thought perhaps we should wait and beg the Government to wait until the rail link was established, but after the revelations that my noble friend has given about the rail link one really thinks that these terminals must be kept permanently.

There is one point which nobody has mentioned so far, and with this I will close. I think almost everybody who goes on an air journey is in a state of tension. Some of us are positively terrified—I am—but there is a tension anyway: "Have I got my passport? Have I got my ticket? Have I lost the luggage?" All this, quite apart from the tension of the air journey itself. Now, my Lords, when you get to the central Terminal and you have checked in you can forget your tickets, your luggage has gone and you are on your way. Under this new arrangement you have to do the whole thing twice—get yourself to the Terminal, make sure your bus is going to get there in time; and then when you arrive at the airport you have to manhandle your luggage, look for another porter and check in in the disagreeable atmosphere of any major airport.

If the noble Earl is going to tell us that there are going to be all sorts of improvements at Heathrow, I have had some account of them from my noble friend. We all know that there is an air of bustle and rush, an air of almost hysteria at any major airport. Many of us infinitely prefer to check in at the quieter central point, and I am quite sure that B.E.A. ought to think about that if they want to attract new customers.

My Lords, I beg the noble Earl to consider the inquiry which my noble friend is asking for. The B.E.A. Public Relations Director said that the new plan was in the best interests of all, but I simply fail to see how it is going to help the rest of us to increase the pressure at the airport as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said; to increase traffic on the roads as he also said, and to increase the psychological pressure on the passengers and on the staff alike. I simply fail to see how taking away a facility from 1½ million people is going to help the rest of us. I do beg the noble Earl to think again. I beg him to listen to the arguments which have been put from all sides of the House to-day and I beg him to give my noble friend the inquiry for which she has asked.

8.47 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, said that when you travel by air you are in a state of nervous tension. She may indeed have considered that a similar state is implanted upon those who have to answer Lady Burton's question on any subject to do with air travel. We have heard this evening some very persuasive eloquence, and I would agree with the noble Baroness that this is no Party issue whatsoever. Indeed, I thought that I was going to have to hunt around to find some friends but I was grateful to see that the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, came in and at least offered some support for the view which I have been obliged to take from this box.

My Lords, "the Saga of Gloucester Road" is what the noble Baroness described it as. I might equally have described it as "Baroness Burton's biggest battle"—and she has had some big ones. If I were to say to the noble Baroness that I am grateful to her for once again drawing your Lordships' attention to the West London Air Terminal, I hope that she will realise that I say this with sincerity. She has asked countless Parliamentary questions on this subject, to which I have had the privilege of replying, and I admire the persistence and perseverance and indeed the integrity of the noble Baroness over this, as indeed on other subjects as well. She feels, as she has shown to-night, that the public are going to suffer as a result of what B.E.A. intend to do and she has used every Parliamentary device and procedure which she can to try to stop this. Let me say to the noble Baroness that she is quite right to do so. Of course it can be inconvenient to the British European Airways, to the British Airports Authority, to the Government and even to junior Lords-in-Waiting, to be subjected to this kind of treatment. But, my Lords, this is what Parliament is for and this, if I may say so without being too pompous, is what democracy is about. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has done, and I would suggest that there are few who do not admire her persistence and no one who does not respect it.

I recognise the importance of this subject and I want to try to give the noble Baroness a fair answer this evening. To do so, let us start on one point of common ground; that is, that the noble Baroness, the British Airports Authority, the British Airways Board and B.E.A., are all anxious to see that the travelling public are given as good a service as is possible. We may differ in our views as to how this should be done, and we may wonder whether this is being done and whether it will be achieved. But the noble Baroness is fair, and I know that she will concede that this is an aim which is common to all. The whole onus of the noble Baroness's complaint is and always has been that under the new arrangement the customer is going to suffer. Her Majesty's Government do not want the customer to suffer; neither do B.E.A. I hope to show your Lordships—and the noble Baroness, though it may be a forlorn hope—that B.E.A. are genuine in their concern that the customer and the interests of the customer, far from being disregarded, are considered at the height of priority.

Before discussing the pros and cons of the B.E.A. decision to withdraw check-in facilities, it may help if I explain the connection between that issue and the Metra study on the movement of passengers and baggage through Heathrow. It is true that consideration of the decision whether or not to withdraw these facilities was outside Metra's terms of reference. My noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury asked why this was so. Of course, Metra were asked to study conditions at London Airport with regard to the travelling public as the highest of priorities. They were to take into account the possible effect of any withdrawal of check-in facilities which might be made at West London Air Terminal. Because of this, B.E.A. undertook not to make a final decision until the Metra study was completed. It was hoped that the Metra study of this aspect would indicate whether or not measures were being taken at Heathrow to offset any possible inconvenience to passengers. The noble Baroness will know that Metra covered this aspect on pages 21 to 23 of their Report. They concluded that as far as Heathrow were concerned the withdrawal of check-in facilities at the Air Terminal would not cause any undue problems for passengers. Following this Report, B.E.A. confirmed their decision to go ahead with their plan to withdraw the facilities.

I hope I may now turn to the main Question put by the noble Baroness, which is whether there will be any passenger problems arising from this decision.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

My Lords, I appreciate that; but the noble Earl will remember that in the Metra Report they stated, on the same pages, that they had not been able to consider the suggestion that B.E.A. should withdraw the check-in facilities.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, that is true. I should like to try to eradicate the idea that B.E.A. are taking this action—and this I know has come out previously in question and answer—solely to saving something of the order of half a million pounds and that in so doing are paying no regard to the convenience of their passengers. B.E.A. are very conscious of the need to meet the needs of the passengers. It was to the needs of these people that the noble Baroness. Lady Llewelyn-Davies, said they should address themselves. Although they are an industry which is owned by the nation and must seek to be a profitable enterprise, they are a competitive industry. They are in competition with other airlines, domestic and international, and would not remain in existence for long if they disregarded their consumers.

Although it may be hard for the noble Baroness to believe this, B.E.A. are taking their decision on the West London Air Terminal in the interests of their passengers as a whole. I stress this because it is important. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies was concerned in her remarks that the passengers should be considered. Perhaps I could explain this. B.E.A. consider that the one service of paramount importance which they can give to their customers, after safety, is punctuality. The customer should know that as far as possible his aircraft will land and take off at the published time so that he will know that he can keep connections and appointments with a tolerable degree of certainty.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? I wonder whether he agrees with the point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, that it was better for the plane to go without the passengers than to wait for the buses which were publicised as joining the plane. It seemed to me an extremely odd point of view. He thought it better that the plane should be punctual and leave the passengers behind in the terminal.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I am coming to that point. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull, said that people were making less use of Cromwell Road Station and he hoped that this would not be put into my brief. Of course it is. I put it in myself. It is a very important point. At present only 20 per cent. of B.E.A. passengers check in at West London Air Terminal. This percentage has declined from a figure of 50 per cent.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Earl said that it was 20 per cent. of B.E.A. passengers. Can he say what percentage of passengers of other airlines use the terminal?

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend an answer to that question but I will find it out and let him know. This is a drop from 50 per cent. to 20 per cent. and it is also an actual drop in numbers as well. Of those using the West London Air Terminal in 1972, the numbers using check-in facilities again fell. The actual number of people using the facilities at this terminal have been dropping since 1969. In other words, a declining number of people are actually choosing to use the facilities which are now open to them. In her remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, referred to the position they would find themselves in at Heathrow where all these people with their baggage would go to check in. One of the surveys carried out by B.E.A. showed that 25 per cent. of the passengers who use the West London Air Terminal carried no baggage at all. A further 20 per cent. carried under ten kilos of luggage. So we have a situation where fewer people (fewer in percentages and in numbers) use the facilities, and of those, nearly 50 per cent. have luggage of less than ten kilos in weight.

Once the passenger has checked in he is then guaranteed a connection with a flight. This means that the aircraft will, if necessary, be held back until the coach arrives at the air terminal. I need hardly tell noble Lords of the delays that can be caused and are caused on the approach roads to Heathrow; and the position is certainly not improving. As my noble friend, Lord Harvey, pointed out, B.E.A. have recently had to increase the time allowed for the coach journey by a quarter of an hour; and they have little doubt that this additional margin will soon be absorbed. The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said that she had no figures for the amount of delay caused by coaches being delayed. I can give some. During October, November and December last year 435 flights out of Heathrow were delayed because they had to wait for the arrival of the coach. This is an average of about five flights a day. One can imagine the frustration and anger generated in the other 80 per cent. or so passengers who presented themselves on time for departure but who were delayed by people arriving late on the coaches. Here I would point out that a coach is capable of taking some 56 people but that the average coach load was only 14 people.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend did not do so deliberately; but the period he gave last Autumn was when there was only one tunnel working out of the two. It is unfair to give a period when only one tunnel, with a mile of traffic stretching on either side, was in use. You must take a period when both tunnels are in full operation.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, I think that my noble friend used in his remarks the argument that here we were, living in a situation where the roads were getting more and more congested, and even now there was only one tunnel; therefore the coaches should be kept in being. My argument with my noble friend is that I agree with him that the roads are congested, and the tunnel is congested by virtue of there being only one; and one result of this is that coaches are delayed and other people who have presented themselves on time have thereby been delayed. I accept that my noble friend may not agree with that.

LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY

My Lords, I do not want to be difficult, but may I pursue this point? As I understand it, during the last two years both tunnels have had the roofs strengthened to take the heavier aircraft. This work has been completed in the last few weeks, and it is highly unlikely that either tunnel will be closed again for that reason, so we can expect a better flow of traffic through the tunnel.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, that may be so with regard to the tunnels, but I think that generally people who have travelled on the motorways—indeed, there were several noble Lords who said so this evening—claim that the M.4 is getting even more congested. So even if the tunnels may temporarily relieve the situation, I think that it is likely that other forms of congestion will soon erode the advantage. As a result of these delays there are other and more serious consequences. On short distance services, of which many are run by B.E.A., delayed flights can throw schedules completely out of gear for many subsequent trips. It reacts through the whole system. It is estimated that each initial delay causes on average at least one further delay in other aircraft. Some B.E.A. aircraft are scheduled to fly eight sectors a day. A delay at the beginning could mean the cancellation of a flight. An additional delay often means that pas- sengers miss a connected flight. From Heathrow to Edinburgh, for example, there may be delay because a coach has not arrived; the plane arrives late at Edinburgh so that people travelling miss their connection. The aircraft turns round and sets off late and arrives late at Heathrow, and so the Edinburgh passengers who have presented themselves on time find that they have missed the connection on to Paris.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? I think that we are not going to get anywhere on this. The noble Earl is approaching this from an entirely different viewpoint. It is no use going back to the number of people who used the terminal in 1950 or whatever, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said. We are concerned with the present. Is the noble Earl really telling the House—let us get away from percentages—that the number of people using the check-in facilities at the terminal may be presumed to have more than 10 kilos of luggage? At B.E.A. they gave me the figure which is very similar to the numbers last year—1,363,000-odd. What I want to ask the noble Earl is this. Does he think it right that B.E.A., which is a service organisation, should deny service to 1½ million people? Has he the slightest conception—I do not think that he uses this service—of the number of people going on holiday (never mind Edinburgh) who miss their plane and who are thereby stranded? Does he not realise that this is the welfare of ordinary people, which means most of us, which is at stake? He has said nothing at all about people missing their planes because of this.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, it is all very fine for the noble Baroness, with great respect, to say, "Let us forget about the past and think about the present". But the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, and others have said rightly that B.E.A. must give what the customer requires. I have tried to show that in fact the requirement for this particular facility is less. The noble Baroness is concerned that people miss their flights, and so also is B.E.A., which is what I have been trying to point out. B.E.A. is just as concerned that people should not miss their flights; and one of the problems about this service is that it results in people missing their flights.

I said originally that B.E.A. are concerned to make their decision in the interests of the passengers as a whole. I have discussed this question with senior executives of B.E.A. and they have assured me that they would arrive at the same decision to close this check-in facility even if there were no financial gain, because they consider it to be in the best interests of their customers as a whole. I beg the noble Baroness to realise that. I know that she says that we are not getting anywhere, and I think that what she means by that is that she is not winning me over to her point of view. I accept that there is a difference, but she must, I think in fairness, see that B.E.A. are trying to provide the service which is required; and the service which in their judgment is required is a service of punctuality—the very thing which the noble Baroness says we should have.

My Lords, it is also relevant to remember that what is now proposed for West London Air Terminal is in line with what happens in other parts of the world. I know that there are those who have said that we ought to provide something better. I would agree that if we could do so perhaps it should be done. But what I am trying to point out here is that altering the existing system does not make it worse than anywhere else. There is no other capital city in Europe, other than Athens, which has a check-in point.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE

My Lords, there is a great difference between travelling from Frankfurt to the airport, or from Amsterdam, and travelling from the centre of London to Heathrow. That seems to be one of the things that B.E.A. cannot see. On the punctuality point I still cannot understand why they cannot re-time the coaches. That does not sound to me to be a very difficult job.

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, of course they could re-time the coaches and that is what they have done. Just recently they have extended the coach times by another quarter of an hour, but even this is likely soon to be absorbed. If you got passengers to check in hours ahead you would be certain of their getting to the airport on time. But what is the situation, my Lords? The Terminal will not be closed. Passengers who wish to travel by coach from the Terminal to Heathrow will still be able to do so. There will be a freequent service, with buses and trailers leaving at peak times every 10 minutes, and passengers will be advised of the time of the last coach which in normal circumstances should connect them with their flight. This will not be a guaranteed connection. I admit straightaway to the noble Baroness that I have said to her on previous occasions that this would be a guaranteed connection. I told her that because at the time the information which I gave her was correct. In fact, it had been hoped at the beginning when this was considered that it would be possible to preserve the guaranteed connection. But in the light of the increased delays which have been caused it was decided to drop the guarantee in the interests of the passengers as a whole.

The layout at the West London Air Terminal will be changed. Instead of the present system, whereby one is deposited half way up the building and one has to descend through two floors and negotiate four awkward flights of stairs to the coach—to which the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, referred—everything will be on one level. It will be considerably more convenient than the present system for elderly people, for those with children, and, I suggest—as my noble friend Lady Emmet required—for those who are infirm. Passengers who alight from a taxi will merely have to walk through a hall a distance of some 30 paces to a waiting bus. At Heathrow £90,000 is being spent on creating a covered-in area where passengers will be dropped from the coach. They will proceed with their baggage by escalators, lifts or stairs, all of which are being installed, into the terminal building, where they will check in. Porters and trolleys will be available at the coach for the assistance of passengers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said that the Underground was no use because it could not carry luggage. In fact, there will be new rolling stock for the Underground link. Four seats will be taken out in each coach adjacent to the double doors; they will be replaced by baggage racks. My noble friend Lord Harvey wondered what would happen when one got to the other end. The Underground at Heathrow will be linked to each terminal building by a subway equipped with travelators so that passengers will not have to carry baggage for long distances. It is accepted that the Underground link to Heathrow will not be an ideal way of travel for those with a great deal of heavy luggage, but it does not replace any other system; it is merely complementary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burton, asked what was the position of the consumer: to whom did the consumer write? She claimed that she was speaking on behalf of the one and a quarter million consumers. I realise she was putting forward the view held by some people who travel, but I think it would be a misapprehension if the noble Baroness were to claim she was speaking necessarily on behalf of all of those who used the West London Air Terminal. In fact, there is no users' association for air travellers. If there are any complaints they are fully investigated and followed up by the Air Corporation's customer relations manager.

BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY

Rubbish!

EARL FERRERS

My Lords, before the noble Baroness gets too agitated, I know that she feels she wants someone on the Board of B.E.A. to be concerned with passenger problems. The Board of B.E.A. as a whole considers it its responsibility to look after the problems of the travelling public. The noble Baroness may remember that in 1965 her right honourable friend Mr. Roy Jenkins, the Minister of Aviation, when he answered a Parliamentary Question in the House of Commons, said he would be appointing a consumer director at the end of that week to bear in mind special considerations as well as paying some regard to the general work of the B.E.A. It was then announced that Mrs. Alison Munroe had been appointed a part-time member of the B.E.A. Board with special responsibilities for the interests of the domestic passenger. She is a member of the Board. Part of her responsibilities may be those, but it is the Board as a whole which considers it its business to look after the interests of the consumer.

My noble friend Lord Kinnoull said that the routes to Heathrow were totally congested and that there should be an inquiry on methods of how to get there.

However, a study was undertaken only a few years ago into supplementing ways of getting to Heathrow; that included the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Greater London Council, British Rail and the London Transport Executive. It was a very comprehensive study and as a result they recommended the provision of the Underground link as opposed to a rail link and that is what is now being constructed. In the Greater London Development Plan there have also been proposals designed to improve the access and to cater for the forecast increase in traffic. That plan was reviewed by the Layfield Committee which reported recently and which suggested modifications to the plan. The Layfield Report is being considered by the Government at the moment.

I have myself been out to the West London Air Terminal and to Heathrow on two occasions; I have seen proposals on the ground and have seen the plans.

I have spoken to the Chairman and Chief Executive of B.E.A. and other senior executives, and I have also seen the Deputy General Manager of the British Airports Authority at Heathrow. They are not automata in offices who care only for a system and not for the individual. They are desperately anxious that the travelling public should be correctly looked after, and they are doing, all that they can to see that there are as few problems as possible for passengers.

Perhaps I can let the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, into a secret. When she first loosed off her fusilade of questions at me some nine months ago, I had a sneaking feeling that the noble Baroness was probably right. I thought that the travelling public would suffer. I can now honestly tell her that I am quite convinced that the arrangements which have been made, far from inconveniencing the public, will in fact prove to be to their benefit. I shall now let the noble Baroness into another secret. As I said at the beginning, I have always admired and respected her persistence. While I do not wish to encourage it, for fear that I should make a rod for my own back or the back of some other wretched person, I do believe that her persistence has done a public service. It has enabled, and indeed forced, everyone to think and re-think their plans lest they should find themselves harpooned by the noble Baroness for any act which they might have done or which they might have been proposing to do. But I can honestly say that I believe that the plans which have now resulted in this change in the system are better, and will ensure even more convenience to the travelling public, than those which were being proposed initially, and I pay my tribute to the noble Baroness for having kept everyone on their toes.

My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's Question therefore is that this is a decision which is entirely within the competence of B.E.A. to make. I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in saying that he hoped the Government would come out hard against this proposal. The Government are persuaded that this decision is in the interests of B.E.A. passengers as a whole, and that both B.E.A. and B.A.A. are doing all they can to reduce any resultant problems for a minority of passengers to an absolute minimum.

If at the end of this debate the noble Baroness feels—and I am sure she will not—dissatisfied, let me offer her one sprig of consolation. It is only of consolation, and not necessarily of hope, but it is a sprig. Of course the Government realise that the facilities which are being provided ate not the only ones which could be provided, and that the whole area around which this debate has been conducted is encrusted with problems capable of different solutions. Her Majesty's Government have never claimed for themselves, for B.E.A. or the British Airways Authority a monopoly of good or right ideas, and while the Government are satisfied that the decision over the West London Air Terminal is correct and should stand, I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that what has been said both by her and by your Lordships this evening will be considered with great care, as Her Majesty's Government, B.E.A. and the British Airports Authority are concerned that the best possible facilities for the travelling public should be provided as can be. I realise that what has been said this evening in this House has been said in order to ensure that the aims that we all have are properly met.