§ 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, as air travellers in possession both of flight confirmation and the relevant ticket are unable to assume that these are valid although paid for, such booking conditions apply to theatres, trains and other "booked" activities; and whether they will make a statement.
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, it is quite usual for those contracting to supply services at a future date to provide for the possibility that they may be unable to do so. Holders of air, rail, bus, boat and theatre tickets all face the possibility that the journey, or performance, they have booked and paid for may be deferred or 1561 cancelled. This is something we can consider in relation to the recommendations of the Law Commission in its forthcoming Report on exclusion clauses in contracts.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, that is a disgraceful reply from a Minister representing the consumer side of Government. Could the Minister for once contemplate some action instead of deferring it, or waiting for a report? Is the Minister aware that if one books a seat in a theatre and has paid for it, and one does not go to the theatre, the seat remains empty throughout the performance?—one has paid for the seat. Is the Minister also aware that if one gets a ticket on a train one can have the pleasure of standing if there are no vacant seats? Is he really telling the British public that any tickets they buy for anything may not be valid when they turn up to use them? Is that what he is saying?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, I hope that we will get this problem in its proper perspective. First, I should like to comment on the question of trains, theatres and air tickets. In the case of the theatre and trains, if you reserve a seat and do not take it up you do not get your money back. But in the case of air travel where there is no "show up" you get the whole fare refunded. You must consider both ends. The Government position is that we are not prepared to panic on this question, for the following reasons. First, it is already being considered by three bodies. As I told my noble friend on Tuesday, the Trade Descriptions Act is being reviewed by an inter-Departmental Committee. Secondly, I told her today that this is a matter which can be considered by the Law Commission in connection with exclusion clauses in contracts. Thirdly, as a member of the Airline Users' Committee she herself knows that this is a matter which has been referred to the Civil Aviation Authority, and it is considering it in conjunction with the airlines. Those points comprise the first reason why the Government are not prepared to panic.
The second reason is that this has gone on for years, and it is not something over which one ought to panic. Thirdly, the figures are very interesting. From October 1972 to October 1973 the figures for 1562 British Airways Overseas Division were as follows: 1.3 million passengers were carried; 141,000 passengers—that is more than 10 per cent.—got their money back because they did not travel. The number who were not carried on the plane on which they were booked was 274 or 0.02 per cent.
The final reason is, it is obvious that if there is a change in this practice there will be a cost and somebody has to pay that cost. It may well be that passengers would prefer the present arrangement, rather than have increased fares or a penalty if they cancel their flight.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have much more confidence in myself than in any of the bodies he mentioned? Does he realise that he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick? He has told us about passengers who do not turn up getting their money back. I am concerned about passengers who do turn up, do not get their seats and do not get their money back. The noble Lord has already answered my questions for next week—but I knew that the figure was 274. Is he really telling the House that the situation in which 274 people who had booked their seats, who had paid for them but did not get them, is one which must continue until somebody, in the dim and distant future, recommends possible action?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, three matters were raised in that supplementary question. First, the noble Baroness said that she had more confidence in herself than in any other bodies. I should have been surprised if she had not. Secondly, she said that we should be alarmed because a number of people have not been able to get their seats. This is happening not only in this country but in every other country of the world. All countries have the same system. If we start changing our system in panic, and we increase our fares, or we have penalties for cancellation, we should put ourselves out of competition. This is a coin with two sides. Let us look at both sides—which takes time. I did not refer to the "distant future ". Indeed, one of the committees has been asked to report before the end of the year, and I am quite sure that the Civil Aviation Authority will be making up its mind before the 1563 end of the year—and that is not the dim and distant future!
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords—
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, I shall leave this matter for other noble Lords to pursue in a moment, but may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I think his reply is a disaster?
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, does the Minister agree that it is surely a rather strange point that, because this has gone on, it should be allowed to continue? Would not fares, which have been going up very abruptly recently, be cheaper if there were not this number of "no shows", because people who wished to book could be placed on the aircraft? It is really ridiculous that you can book at no cost to yourself, not turn up, and then get your money back. You are thereby depriving someone who wishes to travel on urgent business, and the whole paraphernalia of administrative payback and the rest must add to the cost. If the rest of the world is doing this, I think it is a scandal that it should go on. Could not we, as an enlightened nation and as one in the forefront of civil aviation, take the lead in saying that, just as in other ways, if a passenger does not turn up and has paid for his ticket, he forfeits the ticket, so that there would then be an opportunity of cheaper fares for all because we should not be wasting that money?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, the remedy suggested by the noble Lord is, to my knowledge, being considered by one of the bodies I have mentioned. It is the job of that body. Let us leave it to that body to do it. That is what we pay it for.
§ Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGERMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that answering this Question primarily in terms of trains, theatres or aircraft which are cancelled is one thing and it may be unavoidable; but that it is different from booking a seat and finding it sold to somebody else, which I think is what happened?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, I agree that it is quite a different thing; but I come back to the cost which must be met in some other way. We have properly constituted bodies for seeing whether 1564 there are alternative methods for putting the cost somewhere else, and I suggest that we leave it to them to work this out. That is why they are appointed.
§ Lord KENNETMy Lords, if it is the case that only 0.02 per cent. of ticket holders do not get on, should we be too worried about a 0.02 per cent. increase in the price of tickets?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, I am not sure that I can wholly accept the noble Lord's mathematics. I should need to have notice upon what would be the effect on fares; but that is a possibility which has been borne in mind in the same way as whether or not there should be a penalty for cancellation.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether one of the difficulties here is, as he said, there are three different committees and commissions considering this matter? In order that early decisions can be reached, would it not be desirable that there should be some co-ordination and over-authority of these three separate organisations?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, they are not all considering merely this matter. The inter-Departmental Committee is considering it in the context of the Trade Descriptions Act, and this is only a very minor part of it. The Law Commission is considering it in relation to exception clauses—again this is a very small part of it. In the case of the Civil Aviation Authority, it is dealing with this specific problem; and it is from there that we should expect a result soon.
§ The Earl of DROGHEDAMy Lords, is the noble Lord telling us that because foreign airlines have this principle of over-booking we must conform to that system? Is it not well-known that in Italy people book on a number of days when they do not really have any serious intention of flying? Is the noble Lord aware that while in Italy it is absolutely all right to over-book, otherwise the airlines would be only three-quarters full on many occasions, there is in this country a far less irresponsible attitude towards this matter?
§ Viscount HANWORTHMy Lords, would not the Minister agree in making the calculation of what is at stake, that the 10 per cent. who are not taking up 1565 tickets and have booked, is roughly the amount one has to bargain for if one is going to ensure that we are not going to use any over-booking at all?
§ Lord JACQUESMy Lords, I am not sure that I get the gist of the question. I would say that if a penalty were made for cancellation in order to ensure that seats when booked could be wholly guaranteed, we might be putting ourselves out of competition with those airlines which do not impose a penalty for cancellation.