Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER 1999
SIR MALCOLM
FIELD, MR
RICHARD PROFIT
AND MR
P GRIFFITH
240. Yes.
(Mr Griffith) 27, Madam Chairman. Air traffic control
inspectors.
241. And are ten of those engineering and 17
in the air side?
(Mr Griffith) All of the staff in the Air Traffic
Services Standards Department are involved in the regulation of
air traffic services. There are 27 ATC inspectors within that
department. There are eight inspectors in the en-route regulation
section, but they have the facility to call on inspectors and
other expertise from other parts of the Air Traffic Services Standards
Department.
242. If the service grows considerably, is that
going to be enough people to regulate the world?
(Mr Griffith) That is a good question, if I say so,
Madam Chairman.
243. I always ask good questions.
(Mr Griffith) I know that!
244. That is what I am here for. It is also
what you are there for.
(Mr Griffith) We have just conducted a very detailed
and rigorous survey; an examination of the resources that we currently
have—given the increased demand and the delay in NATS moving
to Swanwick—to see if we have enough resource. The result
of that survey, in my judgment, is that we need a further three
staff, and we are just about to recruit them.
245. So you would not be able to deal with the
expanding work unless you had extra staff? At the moment, Mr Profit,
you work very closely with NATS because, of course, you are all
very closely integrated, are you not? There is a great atmosphere
of trust because you all know each other.
(Mr Profit) No, Madam Chairman, I would not say that
is the case. We are geographically separated from NATS.
246. But you do all know each other very well
indeed, do you not?
(Mr Profit) I would not say that is so because not
all of our Air Traffic Services Standards Department's inspectors
and engineers are recruited from NATS.
247. I did not say that.
(Mr Profit) We know British Airways quite well and
British Aerospace too, so we obviously do know the people we regulate.
248. So would there be difficulty at all if
there was a division of the sort that is proposed?
(Mr Profit) The division will have very little effect
on the work of the safety regulation group. They are already geographically
separated from them. In fact, the only point at which NATS and
the CAA come together currently is at the CAA board level. So
we do not have day-to-day working relationships with NATS at all.
As far as any internal reorganisation is concerned, the separation
will not make a significant difference to day-to-day working activities.
The big difference it will make will be in the perception of the
non-NATS air traffic service providers, who always do have probably
a natural suspicion that the CAA goes rather easy on NATS and
hard on them. NATS, of course, have the opposite perception
Mr O'Brien
249. Obviously the bits for investment in NATS
is open. What would be your attitude if the airline consortium
was successful? Would you consider action to make sure that their
planes, or their services, were favourable to the services that
NATS will provide?
(Sir Malcolm Field) If we look at the three parts
of the Civil Aviation Authority which will be affected by this,
on the safety side we see absolutely no change at all. I have
explained that the rules and regulations are such that safety
would be applied, wherever it is, in the way we do it today. Airspace
regulation: I see no change either. I think the interesting one
is economic regulation. The Government, of course, are the vendors,
not ourselves. They may ask us to look and see whether there are
any conflicts of interest and we obviously would be prepared to
do that. I think that the Competition Act would provide the necessary
safeguards in the sense that if there was any abuse of a dominant
position, which is maybe what is behind your question, then the
Competition Act would come into play. I do not have a problem
with that because I think that is the way in which we will manage
it.
250. What would be your opinion then, where
there is private partnership and the fact that overseas companies
or countries are operating into the UK, do you think there would
be any inhibitions or problems with using the system under a private
system?
(Sir Malcolm Field) I think it really is for the Government
to determine who should purchase the 51 per cent. No doubt they
will take that into consideration as part of their criteria, the
suitability of those candidates. That is not a judgment that we
can make.
251. What evidence is there that other countries
are likely to adopt our system?
(Sir Malcolm Field) In terms of the public-private
partnership?
252. Yes.
(Sir Malcolm Field) I think it is very good that we
are going to be the leaders. I am all in favour of the United
Kingdom being the leader.
Chairman
253. So the answer is none?
(Sir Malcolm Field) I think that we would set the
way. If you remember I said right at the beginning that I think
there are going to be major changes in the next five to ten years
in the way that Air Traffic
Services is managed, owned and delivered in
terms of the service. As far as Europe is concerned, in the short
term I think that we will set the way forward and that is very
good news. Others will follow suit.
Mr O'Brien
254. Why do you express that view?
(Sir Malcolm Field) I hear quite a lot is going on.
We hear that New Zealand is thinking of bidding for certain contracts.
We hear that Germany is thinking of moving into the private sector,
having been commercialised/corporatised. I think that others will
come. I am sure you heard Sir Roy and Bill Semple earlier talk
about the opportunities that they see. All I am saying is I think
that will happen. We have to make sure that there is really good
regulation and that covers the three aspects of regulation, safety,
economic and airspace.
Mr Stevenson
255. Could I just clarify for the record that
you do confirm that you know of no other country in the United
States, in Europe, in South America, anywhere else other than
perhaps with the exception of Fiji, that has actually privatised
their air traffic control services?
(Sir Malcolm Field) I think the question was on the
basis of a public-private partnership. That is absolutely so,
I do not know of any other country.
256. Thank you. You also referred to NavCanada
and the New Zealand model and you indicated in response to a question
from my colleague, Mr O'Brien, that those services under those
models are looking to expand their operations. Is that correct?
(Sir Malcolm Field) Yes. I referred to New Zealand
and Germany.
257. Sorry, New Zealand and Germany. Thank you
for that. Nevertheless, New Zealand is one that you can confirm
as far as you understand is looking to expand its operation.
(Sir Malcolm Field) I quote from their report and
accounts, that was where it was mentioned.
258. You say in your memorandum that "In
our view, the PPP would be the next logical step in NATS development".
In your memorandum, perhaps there are elements I have missed,
I see no reference at all to other possible models such as some
that you have referred to here today. Did the CAA do any sort
of examination in detail of the alternative models and, if so,
did you present those findings to the DETR?
(Sir Malcolm Field) Yes, we did. In our response to
the consultation document we looked at a number and that was actually
including NATS and NATS being part of the CAA. We looked at three
or four different models and our view was this was the best measure.
259. If you could briefly tell me, as you always
do answer the questions, what were the main objections that the
CAA discovered after they had investigated the main alternative
models that convinced you that PPP was the right way forward?
Was there anything you could put your finger on, for example in
the New Zealand model, the Canadian model, the German model, to
say "no, that is not it"?
(Sir Malcolm Field) I can be very brief. As far as
the NavCan is concerned, the one that you mentioned, we looked
very carefully at this and the conclusion we reached was that
it really was not a motivational form for the future in the sense
of its cost recovery and there is no real incentive as far as
we can see to drive the business forward. As far as the New Zealand
one, which is corporatisation, it seemed to us that it would not
pave the way for us to be confident that we can get the levels
of investment we require in the future. On those two grounds we
discarded those reasonably quickly. What we liked about the PPP
was that it was a combination of the private sector and the public
sector. By the way in which the Government is preparing its case
and looking at the draft Bill and all of that, it seems to us
that this is a very, very good way forward, bringing the two approaches
together into one company.
| 
