| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): If my right hon. Friend remains so convinced, why has he been unable to convince the British Air Line Pilots Association?
Mr. Prescott: I think that the only threat to safety comes from the constant visits that my hon. Friend makes to the pilots' cabin during the flight.
Secondly, delays would be damaging--
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Will my right hon. Friend allow me?
Mr. Prescott: No; I have to get--[Hon. Members: "Give way."] No, I am not giving way.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend allow me?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not intend to give way. [Interruption.]
Mr. Prescott: I do not have to, either.
Mr. Speaker: That is the Minister's right.
Mr. Prescott: Delay would be damaging to NATS, to the airlines, to passengers and to this country. There is an urgent need for substantial investment in NATS. We need the two centres, at Swanwick and at Prestwick, and we need them on time. There is also an urgent need for the injection of new project management skills. Everyone who knows about the industry agrees that we need to separate service provision from regulation, and especially safety regulation, as indeed the Transport Sub-Committee recommended--and we adopted its recommendation. I shall now give way to its Chairman.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am astonishingly honoured. I am overwhelmed--and I am not even French.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not chosen to visit any flight decks but that I happen to know that BALPA gave serious evidence to our Committee to the effect that it is strongly convinced that the PPP is not in the interests of air safety? I hope that he will now answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
Mr. Prescott: I have visited flight decks and found pilots with different views, but also ones with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The British Air Line Pilots Association has made it clear that it does not support the proposal. That is a matter of record, both in the Sub-Committee and in the House. BALPA took the same view when British Airways was privatised, but I do not think that it now believes that safety is threatened in a privatised airline. If I am to take account of the vested interests, I must consider how the pilots changed their mind once it became a privatised company.
Perhaps most important, there is an urgent need for certainty. Further delay at this stage would be unfair and damaging to the future of air traffic control.
There is also a constitutional issue. The other House is a revising Chamber and has been very helpful on the Bill, on such matters, for example, as charging utilities
companies for street works, concessionary fares for disabled people, and the concept of home zones; but this is the elected House that reflects the will of the people. The Government are an elected Government. The other House should not continue to oppose the declared will of this House, as it is trying to do.This debate is not only about NATS but about whether the other House can lay down a timetable and conditions concerning legislation passed by this House. I am accountable to this House, as are the whole Government, and if we argue the case and have a proposal endorsed in this House with a strong majority, and if it then keeps coming back from the Lords, who say that they do not oppose the Bill but want to put a timetable on it and lay down the political condition that it should be written into a manifesto, that is a ridiculous position. Are we really saying that the House of Lords should lay down conditions saying what should go into political parties' manifestos? That is a constitutional issue.
A combination of Tory and Liberal Democrat Lords have challenged this House. We listened to their views and disagreed with them, but they continue to oppose the will of this House. Our vote tonight will make it clear that we do not accept the proposition that they should lay down timetables or conditions about legislation that this House has passed.
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Is it the Deputy Prime Minister's view that, on a free vote, he could carry the business tonight? He talks about the elected will of the House. Will he put the matter to a free vote?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I believe that we could win such a vote. I think that everyone understands that Governments arrive at their decisions based on the policies that they have agreed, then bring them to the House and have a vote on them. That is precisely what we have done on several occasions both here and in the House of Lords. On some occasions, we have won a substantial majority of the votes. On this issue, we were defeated in the Lords by a majority of only seven. That is not an overwhelming or substantial vote in any circumstances.
It is quite instructive to look at who is supporting the Lords amendments. There are some strange bedfellows. We have noble Lords who want to keep NATS in public ownership, a Conservative party that wants total privatisation of the whole thing, and Liberal Democrats who want something in between--surprise, surprise--but not the PPP.
Opponents of the public-private partnership are much given to playing the safety card. Of course safety is the first priority, and we say so in the Bill. It is simply not true that the private sector is unsafe, and in that regard I have given the example of British Airways. Airlines are strongly in favour of the public-private partnership. Would they support it if they thought that it was unsafe? I do not think that we can honestly say that they would, and a view was expressed about the matter in today's letter to The Times from the chairmen of three major aviation companies.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) told the House on 15 November that he had 100 per cent. faith in the safety regime of NATS. The Conservative peer Baroness O'Cathain said last night that playing the safety card was irresponsible and scaremongering.
I fear that the spectre of the not-for-profit trust will reappear this evening. That issue was dealt with at some length on Report. In that debate, I explained why it was not the right solution for NATS. This House did not support the proposal for a not-for-profit trust, which was also defeated in another place.
The Government still do not support that proposal. Let me be clear: we are not proposing to reopen the nature of the public-private partnership. I am pleased that distinguished members of the Conservative party see the merit in what we propose. Baroness Hogg said in the other place last night that the involvement of a private enterprise in state activities is a plus, and that the public-private partnerships were a manifestation of that involvement. At least she had a clear view--quite different from hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench in this House.
We recognise that a message underlies the Lords amendments. We have listened to that message, and we have listened to what has been said, in both Chambers, throughout the Bill's passage. We have made a number of adjustments--on safety, pensions and the two-centre strategy. We are proposing to make a further change tonight, but we have held to the public-private partnership because we believe it to be the right solution for NATS.
The amendments that stand in my name are an expression of good intent. We want to make it clear that, if the Bill passes through the House this week, we shall not rush out and select a strategic partner for NATS next week. The amendments are an undertaking that we will take time to conduct the process properly, and that we will work on the detail involved.
We have continued to talk to the staff representatives to address ourselves to their worries. We will offer staff the opportunity to meet potential strategic partners. We will further discuss the circumstances of the 5 per cent. employee share scheme, and we will ensure that both the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are well organised for their new roles before they are separated.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): If the Deputy Prime Minister discovers that he cannot satisfy the staff representatives, or many of his own Back-Bench colleagues, will he delay or give up the scheme? Does he realise that it is deeply unpopular with many Labour Members and with most of the staff?
Mr. Prescott: This House has expressed its view on this matter quite clearly. The issue is now not about the purpose of the Bill or about the public-private partnership but about whether the Lords--which is a revising Chamber--is prepared to delay the Bill. As I said before, it is constitutionally unacceptable that it should try to set a timetable for Government legislation and make the condition that any legislation be proposed in a party manifesto.
In this House, we determine opinion through proper debate and a vote. The votes that the Government have won show that we have achieved agreement on this matter in this House.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Last night, Lord Macdonald described the proposed three-month
delay as a concession. However, the Deputy Prime Minister has said only that the Government will make sure that NATS is ready for a public-private partnership, which I presume would have been the case anyway. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment is a concession? If so, what is the concession?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |