| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: That did not sound very convincing.
Dr. Strang: The Minister should ponder.
The Deputy Prime Minister is, first, seeking to reverse the decision of the House of Lords and, secondly, moving amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments. There are questions about what the amendments mean. I have no doubt that the meetings to which my right hon. Friend referred will be entered into with good intent--that is not in dispute--but that does not affect the decision that we are being asked to take as law makers. That is the issue; that is why we must oppose, first, the proposition to reverse the decision of the House of Lords and, secondly, the proposal for a three-month period. Is it a review? I am not certain. It is therefore clear that if we wish to resist the partial privatisation of our air traffic control system, we must oppose the Government in both Divisions.
I understand the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but the position established in the other place enables the Government to walk away from this privatisation with dignity. We know that there are excellent policies in the Transport Bill, which must be saved. So I appeal to the Government--this is not a constitutional outrage; I do not think that anybody would now argue that--to accept the will of the House of Lords and to think again.
Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): This is the third time in a month that this issue has been debated in the House, and the positions are pretty well dug in. The Government's latest move has not changed much, fails to address the issues and so is unlikely to shift opinion, certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
We remain fundamentally opposed to attempts to privatise National Air Traffic Services, as we have been throughout the passage of the Bill. We acknowledge that there is a demand for investment in NATS, and recognise the need to split safety regulation from safety operation, but we do not believe that either of those requires privatisation.
10.30 pm
The Government's central proposition tonight is a three-month delay in implementation of the PPP. That is surely a new and interesting negotiating ploy: "The Opposition ask for six months, we will offer three." The Government are splitting the difference. We have to hope that the current discussions with the private sector
partners are a little more sophisticated. We also have to recognise that there is a false premise here. The Opposition seek a delay until after the election, to give the Labour party the opportunity to argue its case to the electorate--something that it has not had to do thus far. The Government's offer is just a cynical manoeuvre.According to news reports of ministerial comments earlier this evening, the three months
- is designed to give the Government time to explain more fully
- a public consultation on our White Paper after we had announced the proposal for the partial sale of NATS in June 1998. A Statement was made following that consultation and there has been a Select Committee inquiry. Therefore, there has been ample time for public scrutiny of the policy and of its detail.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000; Vol. 619, c. 1209.]
The three-month compromise is nothing of the kind. It is spin and nothing more. We previously supported a delay until after the election. It is not ideal, for all the reasons that we have set out before, as we would prefer an independent publicly owned corporation or a trust, but it would give us an opportunity to have a proper debate in the country as a whole.
Lord Macdonald also made mention last night of the fact that before the general election, the Prime Minister said in his message to the nation in the 1997 party manifesto:
- We will search out at every turn new ways and new ideas to tackle the new issues . . . how to put the public and private sector together in partnership to give us the infrastructure and transport system we need.
Opinion poll after opinion poll supports the air traffic controllers' and pilots' position of outright opposition to this manoeuvre. If the Government are so confident of their case, why not put it to the test? Instead, we hear threats that investment will be delayed. In particular, the new Scottish centre at Prestwick is in danger.
Let us think of the broader context. How many times have we been told that the Government will spend £180 billion on transport in the next 10 years? Even though it is a wish-list figure, dependent on the private sector, it is an amount that we are supposed to take seriously. Against that figure, the investment in NATS of just over £1 billion in a similar 10-year time frame is a small drop in the ocean. Add the unprecedented health of the public finances that the Chancellor is keen to shout about, and it is no wonder that the public are cynical about the "no investment" threat. The public sector could certainly find the funds, and we believe that it could underwrite this project.
Throughout this process, the Government's approach has depressed everyone who has had to listen to it. Amid all the threats, the complaints of constitutional outrage and the compromises that are not compromises, the Government have made no attempt to tackle the increasing number of question marks over the details of the PPP. There is the new regulatory regime, which NATS itself has said that it could neither accept nor implement,
and which the management attack as inappropriate. Separately, there is the lack of additional safety inspectors for the Civil Aviation Authority, and the absence of any request for additional resources to cope with the privatised air traffic control.How about the conflicts of interest? Lockheed Martin seeks to become the paymaster so that on the Scottish project, and through the privatised NATS, it can claim the money that it has lost at Swanwick and elsewhere.
The public distrust the Government on this subject. Perhaps some of the issues will be addressed in the three months that have been offered to explore the arguments, but the Government have shown no willingness to tackle the major issues in the past, so why should we expect a change now? The three-month compromise is worthless, and the House should reject it.
Mrs. Dunwoody: On the whole, Governments are made up of ordinary human beings who make mistakes. If they are sufficiently adult and sufficiently experienced, they know that they should not stick with their mistakes, and realise that in seeking to persuade the electorate, they do better when they not only say, "We have made a mistake," but admit it to themselves.
The partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services is a mistake. Air traffic control is a core service for aviation. It cannot easily make a profit. Putting more and more planes into the sky is not an option. Those who seek to buy the assets all have a particular vested interest.
All the agreed bidders have some conflict of interest. Their motive is not that they consider that the scheme will make NATS a much safer or a much better invested or a much higher quality service. They know that it is a high quality service. They know that it could easily raise money on the open market. What they want to do is to protect their own sectional interest.
The national air traffic controllers have spoken not just for themselves, but for the electorate. The electorate do not want partial privatisation. At present, when there is such chaos in transport, people do not want such a development. They know that it will not work and that it will cause enormous difficulty. All the details that have been rehearsed time and again have never been refuted by the Government or by anyone else acting as an apologist.
I believe that my Government should have the courage, the integrity and, above all, the commitment to say, "This is the moment when we are prepared to abandon this ill-fated and very badly thought out scheme. We need to protect the rest of our Transport Bill, but this one bit should be rethought." If, for any reason--I cannot think of any--the Government really believe that they should bring it back, let them put it in their manifesto and let the ordinary electorate decide.
At this moment, let us accept that this ill-fated scheme will not benefit those who work in the industry, those who use the industry, those who care about the industry, or any of us as elected Members. It is not too late. Please let us abandon the scheme now.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I shall speak briefly on two points.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister telling the House that whether a political party has a mandate from the people is irrelevant? If that is the case, what purpose is served by
an election manifesto? How can the electorate conceive of the Government introducing such a measure, unless that policy was exposed in their election manifesto? [Hon. Members: "Tell us about the poll tax."] The Deputy Prime Minister said that this was a constitutional issue. I believe that the House of Lords has taken a principled stand.The Deputy Prime Minister said that safety was an issue, but of a lesser order than in the rail industry. Will he explain to the House how it is that his Government have reached a state of near hysteria after two rail disasters? Following privatisation of the rail sector, there was a lower incidence of rail accidents, whereas more people and freight were using the railways. Why do the Government adopt one view on safety on the railways and another view on air safety? I urge the House to support the Lords amendments.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |