§ The Earl of KimberleyMy 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 under Section 2 of the British Airports Authority Act 1975 the Secretary of State has an overriding administrative discretion in connection with the authority's functions which is unchallengeable provided he consults with the authority.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, the short answer to my noble friend's Question is, No. The Secretary of State's power in relation to the functions of the British Airports Authority under Section 2(7) of the Act is limited to giving to the authority, after consultation with it, directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance of its functions in relation to matters which appear to the Secretary of State to affect the national interest. As with any statutory power, the exercise by the Secretary of State of this power is subject to judicial review.
§ The Earl of KimberleyMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that sometimes the British Airports Authority seems to exceed its terms of reference, as, for example, in its dictatorial attempts to make Stansted London's third airport and in the way in which it managed to change the names of the lounges at London Airport the other day?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I do not think I would agree with my noble friend about that. In my opinion, the British Airports Authority is a very well-managed organisation and discharges its duties admirably.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, I am looking at subsection (7) of Section 2 and doubtless the Minister will have a copy in front of him. So, while wishing him many happy returns of the day—
§ Baroness Burton of Coventry—may I ask him whether giving to the authority "directions of a 1382 general character" covers maladministration where this affects the national interest or where it can be shown to him that such is the case?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the fact is, I am informed, that a direction of this nature has never been given, under this section at least, and therefore there is no case law upon which I could base an answer to the noble Baroness. In the absence of any guidance from the courts or elsewhere, I think I ought to refrain from offering a legal advice to the noble Baroness.
§ Baroness Burton of CoventryMy Lords, while I accept regretfully that obviously that is a correct answer, is the Minister aware—if I may have his attention—that he is really very good at finding excuses for never being able to give me a proper answer? Does he think that perhaps together with the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, we might be able to have a case and create a precedent?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am sorry about my improper answers. I can assure the noble Baroness that is has nothing to do with her improper questions.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, will the noble Lord say whether he conceives it to be within the powers of his department to give a direction to the airports authority concerning the scandalous monopoly enjoyed by duty-free shops at certain of the airports?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I think I ought to give to the noble Lord the same answer as I gave to the noble Baroness, because to answer the noble Lord, in view of the way that he has put his question, would be to give a specific legal advice much like a counsel's opinion, which would be inappropriate from this Box. But, on the face of it, I should have thought that the type of direction which the noble Lord is suggesting would fall outside the scope of the subsection.