§ 2.40 p.m.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that Section 14(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 does not cover the over-booking of passengers by airlines, they will take steps to make the necessary amendment as soon as possible.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, an Interdepartmental Committee under the chairmanship of the Director General of Fair Trading is currently reviewing the working of the Act.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, in view of what has transpired over this Question, I am wondering whether I might, by way of question, ask my noble friend the Leader of the House if he would take note of this matter affecting Back Benchers. Is he aware that on Friday two separate approaches were made by the Office of the Minister who has replied to me to withdraw this Question today because it was sub judice? As a result of detailed inquiries which I made yesterday and today, I am informed that no application for leave to appeal has been made by Manchester Corporation on this particular matter. Furthermore, is my noble friend the Leader of the House aware that on page 79 of the Companion it states, under "Matters 'sub judice'":
A case which has been decided by a court, but is still open to appeal, is not considered sub judice until notice of appeal has been given.If my information is correct, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that as of coming into this Chamber no notice of appeal had been given? Does he not agree that Back Benchers should not be intimidated in this way, in the hope that they will remove their Question, by officials who have not done their homework?
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)My Lords, I am yet to be aware of any Back Bencher who has ever been intimidated successfully by any Minister, past or present. The noble Baroness has asked me a number of questions. Certainly so far as I am concerned the position is that the sub judice rule is not yet in effect because a notice of appeal has not yet been given, but I understand that there have been some indications through the legal processes 1275 that a case may be before the courts in a very short while. It may be for that reason that that warning note was given to the noble Baroness. I was not aware of what information or what pressures may have been put upon her last Friday. If the noble Baroness would care to see me in my room I will certainly look at it, but so far as this particular matter is concerned it is not yet sub judice because no appeal has yet been officially notified.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, is not the matter a little more complicated than that? I speak in the presence of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but is it not the fact that no notice of appeal or petition can be presented to appeal unless leave is given, and that so far there has been no petition for leave to appeal? Even after there is a petition for leave to appeal, surely the matter does not become sub judice until leave is actually granted?
§ Lord SHEPHERDMy Lords, yesterday the noble and learned Lord, in my view, was wrong, but this afternoon I believe that he is undoubtedly right.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, I did not give my noble friend notice because I was not aware of what the Government were going to say, except that I was told that they would say that the matter was sub judice. Reverting to the original Question, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, whether he can tell us when this report which is being compiled under the chairmanship of the Director General of Fair Trading may be expected? Secondly, would it be possible to expedite and separate this matter of overbooking because air travellers are being gravely inconvenienced, at best, at the present time?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, so far as the report is concerned, it is expected before the end of the year. In the immediate future it is expected that the Committee will publish a consultative document, and at that point any interested parties can make representations. So far as the issue is concerned, we think it would be wise to wait to see whether or not there is an appeal and what the result of the appeal may be before we start contemplating action.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, before the noble Lord issues the consultative document will he or the Government bear in mind the practice of the hotel trade in this field, since is it not the case that there is not a hotel in the world that does not overbook on occasion owing to the danger of cancellations? Should not this be taken into account in favour of airlines?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, the report will deal with the Act as a whole, and the working of the Act as a whole. It will not be specifically dealing with over-bookings. It is obvious that the question of overbooking has difficulties both ways, and that applies to the airlines and to hotels, and consideration of the needs of both parties will have to be taken into account by anybody who is reviewing it.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, the noble Lord will be aware and will remember that my question was directed to the Government and made no reference to the court, or what was before the court. I hope that he will bear that in mind, because he inadvertently answered as though my question had been related to the legal position, which I carefully avoided.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether a safeguard against overbooking exists in the reluctance of the booking office clerks to lift the telephone receiver until the bell has rung at least 30 or 40 times?