| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. MacShane: I genuinely did not understand the intervention of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who seemed to say that she was in favour of privatisation because it led to greater use of a service.
We have a fairly simple set of questions to answer tonight. They are about principle of what form of ownership there should be for an important service, and the problem of air traffic control, which is growing daily. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I am not here exclusively to plead the cause of the employees of the national air traffic control system. I have to plead the cause of my constituents, who are the consumers and users of it. Then we have the politics of whether it is the House that decides, or whether the genetically modified hereditary peers of another place should pop up and decide to frustrate the will of the House.
Let us start with the principle of ownership. We must find the right form of ownership that delivers a service that is appropriate to the public and the national interest, and also delivers the safety and efficiency that we all desire.
Mr. Jenkin: To ascertain whether there is any consistency in the hon. Gentleman's position, may I ask why it is not thought necessary to privatise the tube to bring in private contractors, but it is thought necessary to privatise NATS to bring in a private contractor?
Mr. MacShane: I leave the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench to speak on that issue at another time.
Central to the debate is the nature of the ownership that is proposed. It is an attractive idea that the employees of National Air Traffic Services should have a stake in the equity, and that they should be direct partners in the ownership of the issue.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): They do not want it.
Mr. MacShane: It is true that their trade union says that they do not want it. However, when there has been a change in the ownership and control of any public service, including the national health service and the schools system, the employees--managers and workers--have
often been opposed to it. If we want--[Interruption.] This is a fundamental point about the direction that Britain takes. If we want--
Mr. Don Foster (Bath): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: No; I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me. Other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman can make his points in due course.
If we want balanced ownership in our society, we must give employees in more and more organisations a chance to take a stake in that ownership.
The second problem is more fundamental, and that is the service that NATS is able to deliver in the context of a European air traffic control system that is becoming the most congested in the world. [Interruption.] The moment I mentioned Europe, Conservative Members groaned collectively. However, this is one issue on which they can align themselves with some Labour Members, because there is not a European element.
I would like British air traffic controllers--I believe from personal experience that they are among the most professional and efficient controllers in the world--to play a direct role in the future development of air traffic control over Europe.
Mr. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: Again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to forgive me.
We cannot run efficient air traffic control in the EU with 15 separate systems. In the wider Europe, we have Switzerland and Norway, for example, as well, and efficiency becomes even less possible. Based on our own experience of air traffic control, Britain should become a leading player in future air traffic control in Europe. I should like to see that, but it will not happen unless we move to a new form of ownership and a new means of securing the necessary investment. I ask all my friends in the unions, the air traffic control system and the British Air Line Pilots Association to consider that--[Interruption.].
10.45 pm
Mr. Speaker: Order. I expect the hon. Gentleman to get a hearing. Hon. Members may disagree with him, but he is entitled to a hearing.
Mr. MacShane: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. Like you, I expect, Government Members spent part of their youth talking to the ignorant, the uneducated and the unwashed and brought them to socialism. Slowly, bit by bit, we shall bring the Opposition to a sensible perspective on this matter.
I must part company with my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) on one issue.
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacShane: How can I fail to give way to my hon. Friend?
Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend advocating that, by means of this measure, we fight capitalism with its own tools?
Mr. MacShane: I owe my hon. Friend affection and respect because he has made a better point than he could imagine. If one wants to know one's enemy and trip him up, one should use his techniques.
However, we are discussing a different matter. I do not expect Conservative Members, who are manipulating their ex-hereditaries down the corridor, to worry about the political question, but I ask sensible Liberal Democrat Members to consider it. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) said that there had been no discussion of the issue, but it was discussed in my constituency two years ago and has been on the agenda since then. Either Liberal Democrats allow themselves to be the poodles of the House of Lords, or they accept that the democratically elected Chamber, including Opposition Members, has the last word--[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. MacShane: I hope that the will of democratically elected Members of Parliament will be expressed tonight, not the will of those who are obsessed with under-age sex and blocking every other progressive measure. To vote with them is to vote with those who voted for every reactionary measure that has been returned to this House in the past two years.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will forgive me if I do not consider myself to have been "brought to socialism" by his contribution.
I shall make some brief points. The comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the three-month period were correct, and I shall take them a little further. Three months takes us to the end of February. The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would prepare the way in that period and discuss things with lots of people. Then, presumably, he has to pilot a very controversial measure through to privatisation in March, April and perhaps even May. I do not believe he will be able to give his full attention to partially privatising air traffic control next March and April. Even with his gossamer touch, that is a particularly bad time to steer through such a controversial measure.
I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister knows that he has lost the argument on legitimacy. The proposal did not appear in the Labour party manifesto. If the public remember anything about the subject, surely they remember the speech of the Labour party's transport spokesman at the 1996 party conference, or the views of a previous Labour Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), who spoke earlier.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) should remember a certain poll tax, which was imposed in Scotland, and the arguments that her colleagues marshalled to explain why the policy did not appear in the 1983 Conservative party manifesto. Their explanation was that although they had not specifically mentioned the poll tax, someone had said something about opposition to domestic rates. That bore an uncanny resemblance to the Deputy Prime Minister's explanation. He said, "Okay, it
wasn't in the manifesto, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a speech that it might be candidate for partial privatisation." The Deputy Prime Minister knows that Labour voters did not believe that they were voting for partial privatisation at the last general election. I can prove that conclusively.I called the Labour party many things in the last general election campaign. I assure the Deputy Prime Minister that, if I had believed for a second that the Labour party would partially privatise air traffic control, I would have emphasised that strongly in the 1997 campaign. Whatever else I thought about the Labour party, I believed that even for new Labour, privatising National Air Traffic Services was a privatisation too far.
It is significant that pilots, air traffic controllers and people with expertise in the system oppose partial privatisation. It is also significant that during the by-election for the Scottish Parliament in the constituency of Ayr, which includes the town of Prestwick, no candidate wanted to punt that policy. That includes the Labour party candidate, who wanted to remain as quiet as possible. Surely that was an electoral test, which showed that the policy will not gain ground with voters.
After a lifetime in CND and arguing against nuclear weapons, Neil Kinnock changed his position at the precise moment when the Berlin wall was coming down, eastern Europe was collapsing and the argument for unilateralism had more credibility than ever. Public scepticism about privatisation of infrastructure and utilities is at its highest for 20 years. It is ironic that the Deputy Prime Minister will be remembered as the man who pursued privatisation even to the extent of praying in aid Tory peers at the precise moment when the public realised the weaknesses in the privatisation formula.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |