---

9.30 pm

There is a huge difference between the new concept and the system that we operated in the past, which, despite differences of specification and equipment between nations, the requirements of the military and so on, has worked reasonably well. There has always been a need for improvement. At holiday times, the congestion on the airways can be severe, and Eurocontrol has much work to do, but it should be done in co-operation with national Governments, voluntarily. The issue is technical, rather than political.

Then there is the matter of joint airworthiness requirements. Aircraft are now built to European standards of certification, and aircraft imported into our continent are validated to European standards--joint airworthiness requirements.

Flight crew licensing is a controversial issue, on which we have had debates. The European Civil Aviation Conference has imposed new continentwide regulations which it is eager to impose on flight crew in this country. Those are costly and less effective than the simpler and more straightforward regulations under which air crew have been licensed in the past in the UK.

It is clear from all that that the European Union has hegemonistic aspirations in airspace management. To imagine otherwise is to be blind to the way in which the EU has developed in recent years. The Government would therefore be wise willingly to incorporate new clause 27 into the Bill.

Under clause 81(4)(a), the Secretary of State would have powers to give directions

to regulate or prohibit (absolutely or subject to conditions) the navigation of all or any descriptions of aircraft over the United Kingdom.

If that were challenged by the European Union, as it probably would be, it could cause our Government great difficulty unless we made it plain that British law had precedence over European law in this matter.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I had hoped to raise with the Minister, and I shall do so now. If the measure were challenged under article 298 of the European Union consolidated treaties,

9 May 2000 : Column 745

it would not be a defence for the Government to invoke the concept of national security and claim that they are unable to define the requirement exactly because of national security, as article 298 states:

The Court of Justice shall give its ruling in camera.

That means that the court will require detail of the reason, which the MOD may not wish to give.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts flesh on the bones of my argument.

Under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State would also have powers to give directions

to regulate or prohibit (absolutely or subject to conditions) the use, building, maintenance or establishment of aerodromes or flying schools or of any description of aerodrome or flying school.

Those are commercial or industrial matters, and again the European Union could understandably claim that its industrial policy should have precedence over our national considerations of sovereignty and independence.

I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to think again. We are not being fanciful. We are not having flights of wild imagination. We are not carried away with Europhobia or anything of the kind. Our arguments are intensely realistic. The Minister is a reasonable man, who has a great grasp of detail. I hope that he appreciates that our arguments have force, and that he will accept them.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate, punctuated by Opposition Members' anxieties about the imagined impact of European Union obligations on national security. Perhaps it would help if I summarised the basic thinking behind the amendment. We have not tabled the new clause at such a late stage simply because of an oversight; we believed that it was necessary to add a further provision in addition to clauses 38 and 81.

As I explained earlier, we believed that it was appropriate to grant the Government direct powers of intervention rather than depending on directions, for which clause 38 provides. I hope that we have made a convincing case for the importance of quick action by Government in times of national emergency. New clause 5 would facilitate that.

Mr. Jenkin: I want to pursue a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made. New clause 5(4) states:

A person must comply with an order under this section notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.

What other duties does the Minister envisage?

Mr. Raynsford: The new clause is clear. It states "notwithstanding any other duty". That is a clear and firm statement of intent. As I explained earlier in response to the interventions of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), we believe that the Secretary of State should be able to act without fear of challenge from a party that would try to use the courts to frustrate the Government's action. The Bill includes provisions to enable the Secretary of State to act decisively and to make it clear that no other duties will override that for which the Bill provides.

Mr. Jenkin: Let us suppose that our fantasies are realised and a duty to comply with a contractual

9 May 2000 : Column 746

obligation arose under European legislation. Would that duty be set aside under new clause 5? Does the new clause apply to any duty under European Community law?

Mr. Raynsford: I shall have to repeat my response. I am sorry if it is becoming tedious for my hon. Friends, but it is clear that Conservative Members are finding the point difficult to grasp. We are satisfied that our measures are entirely compatible with our treaty obligations. We do not accept Conservative Members' analysis--or fantasy--about a perceived or real conflict between European treaty obligations and the Bill. I shall consider that point in detail later.

Mr. Cash: If the Minister would be kind enough to consider title V of the Amsterdam treaty, perhaps he would concede that it provides that we "shall" comply with a range of provisions, but that in the case of a common action plan, we "may" have to comply with specific provisions, subject to qualified majority voting. We are considering not only duties but powers. I therefore asked the Minister why the new clause did not refer to "functions", which include powers and duties, instead of merely to duties.

Mr. Raynsford: In the nicest possible way, I tell the hon. Gentleman, who is becoming a little tedious, that the Bill is drafted with a view to achieving clarity rather than indulging the fantasies of hon. Members who spend their time immersed in textual analysis of obscure European provisions.

To come to the point, we have introduced the provisions to ensure that the protection of the national interest and national security is unequivocal. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked whether the change of ownership could prejudice joint civil and military operations. He mentioned the Joint Air Navigation Services Council document, to which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred. I shall pass him a copy, but I assure him that it makes it clear that that body believes that the new arrangement will

preserve the successful civil/military relationship that currently exists between NATS and the MOD and ensure that air traffic services are sustained on a joint and integrated basis, post PPP.

The MOD has been closely involved in the preparation of the provisions and is fully content that under the PPP its joint working arrangements with NATS will be maintained effectively and that national security will not be compromised.

I make it clear that the choice of strategic partner will depend on several factors, one of which will be the ability to demonstrate an appropriate security culture. Under the terms of the licence, we shall be able to prevent unacceptable changes in the control of NATS on national security grounds.

The hon. Gentleman asked who would control our airspace. I make it absolutely clear that UK airspace remains under UK control regardless of who is the strategic partner. Air traffic services will be provided under a licence, which may be revoked, or the special administration regime may be triggered if the licence conditions or the statutory duties, including safety duties, are breached.

The other main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks relate to the competence of the European Commission and the European Union. The Commission has seen the Bill's

9 May 2000 : Column 747

text and has not suggested that there is any conflict between any of its provisions and the requirements of the treaty. Of course, I do not expect Conservative Members to accept that.

Mr. Duncan Smith rose--

Mr. Raynsford: I will give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman restrains himself. Conservative Members demonise the Commission, so the idea that it can have had a sensible and intelligent discussion with us about the provisions is completely alien to their nature, but if they return from fantasy land to the real world, they will realise that that is the reality.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that we demonise the Commission, but if I were part of the Commission, I would have exactly that opinion. It falls in with our argument--the Commission is content because the provision lays the Government open to the future policies that we have discussed.

I ask the Minister a simple question. He mentioned the action that the Government may take under new clause 5, or under clauses 38 or 81, but especially under new clause 5(4), which includes the words:

notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.

He said that in the clear belief that no other duty will matter, because the derogation on national security is absolute, but he should remind himself that the derogation exists for only four articles of the treaty of Rome. There is no derogation on any other article. Beyond those four, the Government will face a clash of duty, and the duty will be to European law.

---