| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.48 pm
Mr. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Transport safety is important to the public, especially after the Paddington rail crash. The debate is especially timely in view of the recent publication of the Transport Bill, which provides for the partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. The Select Committee has considered that proposal in a separate report. Nevertheless, it would be absurd not to consider public-private partnership in the debate, and many hon. Members have referred to it at length. I shall also comment on it.
The Liberal Democrats remain opposed to sellingoff NATS. The Select Committee's report and the Government's response contains nothing that convinces us that we should believe otherwise. The report's recommendations reinforce our opinion. Recommendation (h) rightly points to the dangers of continuing delay to the new air traffic control centre at Swanwick. The most important requirement is to ensure that the new centre at Swanwick is made operational without further delay. The Government acknowledged that in their response to the Select Committee, in which they claim that they are committed to opening the new en route centre at Swanwick as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made that point in a recent debate on transport safety.
In that debate, the Deputy Prime Minister rightly pointed out that there was already an overspend on the project and that Swanwick was more than three years late under the current system. That is entirely true, so it is all the more important to get on with making the centre operational, which is what NATS should be concentrating on.
Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether a major privatisation process and all the uncertainty that that entails will allow the management of NATS to concentrate, with no distractions, on getting Swanwick up
and running at the earliest opportunity. It is worth pointing out that NATS, in a briefing today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, said that the whole debate, which has been going on since 1994, has been "very distracting and debilitating". Perhaps the Minister will say that it is having no impact on the delay to Swanwick, but that would contradict what NATS said in the briefing. He must confirm when Swanwick will be up and running. In the Government's response to the Select Committee report he said winter 2001-02 but, in response to my parliamentary question, he said spring 2002. The report and the answer were made at more or less the same time--there were perhaps a couple of weeks between them--so which is it?
The PPP for NATS is wrong at this time, although it is of course wrong in principle, and not only the Liberal Democrats are saying as much. There can be no doubt whatever that the overwhelming majority of staff are opposed to the proposal, as are the pilots, and 116 Labour Members signed an early-day motion in the previous Session confirming that they, too, were opposed or wanted other options to be considered.
What is not in doubt is the need for new infrastructure. As we know, demands on air services are growing and new technology is required. The issue is not whether new technology is needed, but how it should be funded. We have had ample opportunity in the past few weeks to debate the PPP for the tube. I do not intend to dwell on that, but it is clear from the Chancellor's recent pronouncements--one made as recently as yesterday--that his obsession with PPPs is driving this ill-conceived part-privatisation. He has ignored the alternative funding proposals made by us and many others.
Recommendation (g) of the report notes the nervousness of the general aviation or amateur flying community over the NATS sell-off. The Popular Flying Association is concerned that
Few people believe that privatisation, partial or otherwise, is a good idea. Happily, there are alternatives. The service does not need to be part-privatised. Another report by the Select Committee proposed alternatives, not least the successful Canadian model under which funding from private bonds has been found. We think that the Government should be considering that model. The safety of air travellers is paramount and for that reason I extend an offer of assistance to the Minister. If he chooses to abandon the PPP and opts instead for a public corporation model for NATS, he will receive the active supportof Liberal Democrat Members in developing those proposals. We would help to facilitate the passage of any such plans through the House.
Mrs. Dunwoody:
That is an offer we cannot refuse.
Mr. Brake:
Exactly. I thank the hon. Lady for her sedentary intervention.
The Government's proposed PPP for NATS is the key concern in relation to aviation safety, but not the only one, and I shall raise a number of issues. I am particularly concerned about the implications of code sharing for safety standards and it raises issues similar to those that have already been mentioned in respect of virtual airlines. As the Minister will know, Delta Airlines had a code-sharing arrangement with Korean Airlines, which has been abrogated. I understand that the United States Department of Transportation is drafting safety guidelines that will apply to alliances between United States and foreign operators. Perhaps he will answer this question: when a UK airline enters a code-sharing arrangement with a foreign airline, what safety requirements are placed on the foreign operator and are the Government satisfied that the safety regulation group will be able to oversee such airlines to a sufficiently high standard?
Liberal Members believe that the Select Committee's recommendation that a safety regulation group should be incorporated into an independent transport safety authority requires detailed consideration. It could be a means of ensuring that best practice in one transport industry is adopted by another. I am conscious that the Minister will not want to pre-empt the Davis report findings, but can he give a commitment that the Government will tell the House how they intend to proceed as soon as they receive those findings? He might be in a position to make a statement on what progress may have been made by their review of transport safety matters.
As other hon. Members have said, if any issue warrants consideration at European level it is air safety. It is little comfort to British travellers that the British aviation industry has an excellent safety record. If they are landing in another country, our good standards may not ensure safe arrival at their destination. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will ensure that UK safety standards will not be compromised and that they will work positively with European partners to increase safety standards in Europe so that there is no dumbing down or lowest common denominator safety standard, a prospect referred to by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire(Mr. Gray)?
I represent a Greater London constituency so I have concerns about Heathrow airport. They have been referred to, particularly in relation to Malaysia Airlines aircraft landing when low on fuel. Our report recommends that the Government re-examine whether such aircraft should be allowed to approach Heathrow over central London. Their response was rather brief and seemed to suggest that they had not taken that recommendation on board. Can the Minister enlarge on their response and tell the House whether they have indeed re-examined the matter?
I am also a little perplexed by the Government's response to recommendation (l) of the report, which concerns foreign aircraft inspections. The report recommends a greater number of ramp checks--I note that they have taken that on board--and the introduction of random checks. The Committee stated that other European countries carry out such checks, but the Government responded by saying that the UK would contravene its Chicago convention obligations by introducing such a practice. On that specific and important point, perhaps the Minister will explain whether there is a contradiction and whether European countries are perhaps breaking their obligations.
Staff and training represent a further concern, and other hon. Members have referred to them. I want the Minister to respond to a specific question: will he today report to the House any interim findings of the interdepartmental working group, which was set up on 10 August, and can he give us a date for the delivery of the report?
The final concern to which I shall refer is the millennium, which is only a couple of weeks away. Will the Minister take perhaps the final opportunity to say whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or Action 2000 will be issuing last-minute instructions to travellers that will perhaps list airlines about which there are no safety concerns whatever, as well as those about which there remain safety concerns over the millennium bug?
"if NATS becomes a company that has shareholders and which will seek to maximise its profits and pay a return to its shareholders, it will be seeking to find income from any source it can."
The report further states:
"The implications for safety would be that either General Aviation pilots would be compressed into a smaller area or General Aviation activities would be compressed into a smaller area, or General Aviation pilots would continue to use the same altitudes as previously, straying into the same airspace as commercial aircraft."
There is concern from other sources.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |