| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Prescott: That is understandable, but the House of Lords has returned the Bill with the PPP. In those circumstances, there are matters that representatives and individuals may wish to discuss; for example, the 5 per cent. employee share scheme, in which some trade unions took the view they did not want to be involved. That is an offer to individual employees; perhaps the unions did not feel that they could enter into discussions while there was such controversy as to whether or not we would have a PPP for NATS. I can understand that, and anyone who has been involved in industrial or political matters will know that it is possible that those concerned could want further discussions. The amendments allow us the opportunity to provide three more months to discuss these matters, as well as to ensure that both the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS are well organised for their new roles before they are separated.
These are real issues which we have discussed, and we are prepared, in the circumstances, to give further time to discuss the matter. That is right and proper in view of the history of and opposition to the Bill, and that is what we are offering with the amendments.
The amendments are our promise to the House. I believe that it is right to proceed with care, but I do not believe that it is right for a revising Chamber to delay the PPP until the election, or to reopen the whole question of the nature of the PPP at this stage. Reference has been made in the other place to political shenanigans. Political responsibility, on the other hand, is to decide the right future for NATS, its safe operation, its regulation and its investment, taking the time and trouble to prepare for the future and then making it happen. The Lords amendments are misguided, while the Government's amendments are a reasonable response to any genuine concern.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister to the debate; we missed him last time. Frankly, our previous discussion was marred by his absence. The Minister for Housing and Planning did his very best, but that is not the same as having the Secretary of State present, as he has been party to the discussions.
We have come rather a long way since our last debate. It is all very well for the Deputy Prime Minister to bluster and fluster about constitutional outrage, but he seems to have conceded the morality of the case by tabling an amendment that accepts the legitimacy of the other place's claim to second-guess the decisions of this House. It was, after all, the Leader of the House of Lords who said that a reformed House was a more legitimate House. I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State is now making gestures in the direction of recognising the reality of the weakness of his case. The upper House has already scored a moral victory.
Why are the Government in this mess over the Bill? It is because their entire legislative programme is in one hell of a mess. They have fallen behind on the timetable of every single Bill, so that not only are they trying to cram consideration of all the Lords amendments on all these
Bills into this last week, but this last week itself is a week or two behind time. The Government have run out of time and they have had to take the issue right to the wire.The Government are also in a mess because they have no mandate for this most controversial policy. A former Labour party chairman, Baroness Jeger, pointed out:
- Moreover, we had balloons stating, "Our air is not for sale."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1216.]
10.15 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jenkin: I can never resist the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, too kind, too willing and always available. As an expert in bluster, will he answer a factual question? Were the Bill to be passed and were his party to win power again, would he renationalise the national air traffic control system?
Mr. Jenkin: I can tell the hon. Gentleman one thing: our policy on National Air Traffic Services will be in our manifesto, whereas the Labour party's policy was not in the Labour manifesto. Our policy at the previous election was to transfer NATS to a British company with British shareholders, regulating British-controlled air space.
Why are the Government unable to deliver the assurances that they keep making? Can the Minister guarantee that in future the Secretary of State will be able to exercise powers under the golden share? A press release issued by the European Commission shows that it is taking the Government to court over the golden share in British airports because it is now believed that golden shares are illegal under European Union law. How can the hon. Gentleman give any assurance that any of the emergency powers will be exercisable under the legislation?
Why, in this curious botched privatisation, is the economic regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority asking for cuts in capital investment as a preparation for privatisation? After all, the Government keep saying that the purpose is to increase capital investment rather than to cut it.
Why do the Government insist that they will hold 49 per cent. of the shares, when the key clause in the Bill shows that they could reduce their shareholding to 25 per cent. or less? How many times have we put that point to the Minister, and how many times has he failed to give proper assurances? As we have said before, this is not a straightforward privatisation, but a deal made behind closed doors--a cronies' deal made in smoke-filled rooms.
Crucially, after three and a half years of fiddling around with transport policy and this Bill, what is the reason for this sudden desperate rush, when we can be only a few months away from a general election? The sudden urgency simply does not ring true. It has more to do with the Government's political credibility than with the strength of their case.
The Government have now brought forward a compromise amendment, which is a vindication of the stand taken by the upper House. What does a three-month delay actually mean? Is this a compromise amendment or not? The Secretary of State should tell us. Will it make any difference to what the Government would have done anyway? I think not. The Secretary of State says that this will allow future discussion. Future discussion for whom?
Mr. Jenkin: Precisely. The right hon. Gentleman makes the case for me. There will be no future discussion in public--no future discussion with the voters of this country. There will be no chance for the voters to decide whether they support this policy.
We are simply not convinced by the Secretary of State's presentation this evening. He knows in his bones that he has been forced to bring this privatisation to Parliament by the Treasury, against his better judgment. It is a botched privatisation.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Will my hon. Friend remind us who, at the Labour party conference, gave the commitment that the air was not for sale? Was it not the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury? He is not in his place now, but did he not give a commitment to the Labour party that the Government would not do this?
Mr. Jenkin: The ironies are even greater. As the Deputy Prime Minister explained, it was the Chancellor who mumbled behind his hand in the middle of a pre-election crisis that privatisation had not been ruled out. The Treasury has driven this deal, against the better judgment of the Secretary of State, who has become a poodle of the Treasury in the matter.
Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman's French might provoke me to a flounce, so I suggest that he control himself.
We will continue to oppose this botched privatisation. We will put our policy on National Air Traffic Services into our manifesto. We will be honest with the British people--unlike this Government.
Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh): We on the Government Benches have listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister's comments on behalf of the Government. We may choose to describe the proposal as a public-private partnership or a partial privatisation, but the Bill provides for a sell-off to the private sector of the bulk of the equity of National Air Traffic Services, and provides explicitly for the national stakeholding to fall to 25 per cent. Indeed, in Committee, it was pointed out that, in exceptional circumstances following that, there
could be complete private flotation if there were a disagreement between the private strategic partner and the Government.We, as Members of the House of Commons, are making law. We have listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I will comment on some of his remarks. We are deciding what will happen to our air traffic control system. The best way in which to oppose the privatisation of our air traffic control system is to vote against the Labour Government tonight.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |