| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.45 pm
The Government want to deliver an investment stream. We all want to do that, and it can be done by means of either the trust or the IPOC--independent publicly owned company--model. We want to achieve a separation in respect of the CAA and the operational requirements of NATS. In effect that happens already, but hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that the CAA lays down only the minimum standard, while NATS operates far above that standard. It is dishonest to suggest that we are providing a safer service as a result of that separation. If we returned to CAA standards, we would be delivering a worse service, so that argument does not stand up.
Yes, we need private-sector management. I am not an ideologue in that regard. I have taken on colleagues in this place who have argued for the return of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston to the Ministry of Defence, which is the last organisation that should run it. It is a question of who runs the service best. How do we achieve the balance between public concern for public safety and the dynamism of private-sector management? The answer lies in the Select Committee's recommendation of a "not for profit trust".
What will the trust model deliver for us? It will certainly deliver the cash. It worked in Canada, which established NAV Canada in 1995. NAV Canada operated successfully for more than five years, and in the first year delivered from the banks and the private sector an investment stream of $3 billion. The trust model works. It does not compromise safety; it is not subject to takeovers by foreign banks, foreign powers, foreign nationals or Asil Nadir--or any other person in the queue to fund the Tory party. It delivers accountability. It is outwith Treasury rules, so there is no need to compete for hard-earned public resources for schools, hospitals, firefighters and so on. It is politically in line with what we are achieving following our pre-election pledge. Perhaps most tellingly, it has support from surprising quarters.
- If the government had decided to adopt this trust model, I doubt there would have been any opposition from the CAA or NATS.
For the last time, I implore the Government to think again. The case for privatisation has not been made. The Government have not only lost the argument, but failed to take with them the air traffic controllers and pilots on whom our lives depend when we take to the skies. They have failed to convince the public, 72 per cent. of whom are against the proposals, and they have failed to convince their supporters in this place. Only as a result of the legitimate work of the Whips, to whose efficiency I pay tribute, will Members go into the Lobby to support the Government's proposals--in many cases against their better instincts, and in many cases against their consciences. I know that, because I have had conversations about the issue for months.
The safety of the skies, and the safety of my constituents who live under the Heathrow flight path, is too important to be sacrificed on the altar of political virility. This is a privatisation too far--for goodness sake drop it, and drop it now.
Mr. Sam Galbraith (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): I want to concentrate on amendment No. 454, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), but first let me make a few comments about the debate that has taken place so far.
Clearly, everyone agrees that the status quo is not an option; the question is, what is the best model to choose? I have listened to some of the arguments against the Government's proposal. The security argument struck me as slightly tenuous and dubious. I have attended debates on similar issues, and security red herrings have always featured. As I consider the argument advanced today to be such a red herring, I shall not say much more about it.
The safety argument is valid, in that we must not do anything to compromise safety. However, I was rather turned off the safety argument when we got into the debate about only 17 per cent. of air traffic control being in the private sector. I did not quite follow the logic of saying, "If it is a small place, you could have a profit motive, but if it was a busier place you could not." I did not quite understand. That seems an argument about numbers. It might be about the experience on staffing levels, but it did not seem to be simply about private ownership. That was one of the things that swayed my mind.
Mr. Dalyell: The trouble is what the pilots who are going into Gatwick and Heathrow believe. All we can report is that they believe that overall control gives them the confidence in a stressful situation.
Mr. Galbraith: Belief is an important factor that we should always consider, but belief is not necessarily fact. People used to believe that the world was flat, but that did not make it flat. Therefore, people's belief is a different issue in these matters.
I do not have to go through all the arguments that people have.
Dr. Strang: Like many of us, my hon. Friend probably flies into Heathrow quite a lot. If he were to stand on the A4 on a Sunday evening, look up in the sky and see all the planes queueing up and coming into the airport, he would realise that there is no comparison between the challenge faced by the aircraft traffic control system there and that faced by some of the small airports. However, it is not just about Heathrow and Gatwick; it is about all the en-route traffic that is the responsibility of NATS.
Mr. Galbraith: I agree. There is no comparison. There is a difference, but the principle that I have been hearing is that if the service is privately owned, there is a threat to safety and, if it is publicly owned, there is not. It should apply across the board. It is not something that we can start chopping up, saying, "It depends on the amount of aircraft that goes in or out." What is the level? Fifty per cent? Seventy-five per cent?
Mr. Galbraith: I have obviously started a debate.
Dr. Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to control any form of risk and we are dealing with a highly safety-critical area? At present, in, if you like, meaningful large-scale air traffic control--which sets the standard--there is no risk element from profit motive coming into contest with the safety prerogative. Pressure on air traffic control systems can only increase; the risk elements can only increase. Is it not unwise to introduce another potential risk element to the equation?
Mr. Galbraith: Again, I do not quite follow the logic. Risk will vary with any reason. If it is risky at one level, it is risky at the other. Degrees of risk might vary, but I do not follow the logic and where the dividing line comes.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Galbraith: This is amazing. I am more than delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Dunwoody: If my hon. Friend were operating in a private hospital as a neurosurgeon and were told that it was more important that he operated much more
frequently to make a bigger profit, would he rather operate in a private, profit-driven hospital or in the national health service?
Mr. Galbraith: The thing that controlled my work in the public sector was laziness because I could not be bothered working too much, so I will just leave it at that.
I drive home the point. What is the level of traffic that makes it dangerous to be owned privately, but not to be owned publicly? Let us have a figure. [Interruption.] Much more than could be coped with? What level is much more than could be coped with?
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): One more.
Mr. Galbraith: That is a false logic.
On the argument that the service must be publicly owned for safety reasons, I do not have to go through all the various examples, but the publicly owned Chernobyl comes to mind. I do not think the argument follows.
May I move on to say a few words on behalf of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr? I hope that the Government will consider accepting it. The whole matter has been dogged for a number of years--it was particularly the case under the previous Government--by a lack of commitment to the two-centre strategy. It has constantly cropped up. The issue has arisen again. It is producing great uncertainty and doubt in Ayrshire, including in my hon. Friend's constituency. She is to be highly commended for, and congratulated on, her sterling work for her constituents and on fighting for jobs and investment, something which her predecessor never did, or was not capable of doing. I hope that we can lay the issue to rest and build the provision into the fabric of the Bill, so that the matter can no longer be used as a red herring.
The question of how best to operate the service is a difficult one. Everyone is agreed that the status quo is not an option. I happen to think, particularly having listened to the debate and the false logic involved, that the Government have got it right. That is why I will be happy to support them in the Lobby.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |