Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 299)
WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER 1999
SIR MALCOLM
FIELD, MR
RICHARD PROFIT
AND MR
P GRIFFITH
280. What impact do you think the new system
will have on the commercial or non-commercial aspects of air traffic
control?
(Sir Malcolm Field) Would you like to amplify what
you mean by "non-commercial"?
281. Safety services such as weather related
information, the CANP and LARS.
(Sir Malcolm Field) The provision of what we would
classify as public interest matters, the Met Office, AIS and things
like that. Is that what you are referring to?
282. Yes.
(Sir Malcolm Field) I am sure that the support of
those will continue as now. It is a very important part of the
overall operation. I do not see any change there. It is a matter
that we are discussing with the DETR at the present time.
283. Do you think that the new operation will
take all of that in without any protest?
(Sir Malcolm Field) I am sure there will be a useful
negotiation about it. It is a matter which has to be addressed,
you cannot just push it to one side.
Chairman
284. So, in other words you have not worked
that one out?
(Sir Malcolm Field) No, it is not that we have not,
it is actually that we are still in discussions with DETR.
285. You have thought about it but you have
not reached a conclusion.
(Sir Malcolm Field) Right you are.
286. So we do not know what effect it will have
on the public services. As an economic regulator, what measures
do you intend to take if the airline consortium makes a successful
bid to become a partner in NATS to ensure that NATS does not treat
those airlines in a preferential manner?
(Sir Malcolm Field) I think I can only come back to
what I said earlier. We are fortunate to have the Competition
Act and any abuse of dominant position, because that is exactly
what you are saying it will be—
287. Having heard your enthusiastic support
of the suggestions that have been put forward, Sir Malcolm, what
I am saying to you is are you quite convinced in your own mind
that you, as the economic regulator, would not have to step in
long before it became a matter of taking them, for example, to
the Office of Fair Trading?
(Sir Malcolm Field) I have thought about this question.
288. I am sure you have.
(Sir Malcolm Field) I am not sure how it would manifest
itself. Are we saying that the airline consortium would put its
planes in front of other planes?
289. Oh, I am sure not.
(Sir Malcolm Field) How is that practicable?
290. Who would ever think.
(Sir Malcolm Field) But how is that practicable?
291. I am asking you, Sir Malcolm. I thought
you were in charge but if you want me to take over I would be
quite delighted.
(Sir Malcolm Field) I am just making the point that
we have given thought to it. As far as the economic regulations
are concerned, we would give a lot of consideration to this and
watch very carefully, it is part of our role as the regulator.
There are mechanisms there.
292. Such as?
(Sir Malcolm Field) The Competition Act, the Office
of Fair Trading.
293. So you are really saying that if there
was any question of a conflict of interest that would be left
to the Competition Act?
(Sir Malcolm Field) Partly, yes.
294. Partly or wholly, Sir Malcolm?
(Sir Malcolm Field) It is the final fall back position
but there would be actions for us to take on the way.
295. But you do not know what they are?
(Sir Malcolm Field) I think we will have to wait to
see how it manifests itself.
296. Yes. Parliament has to take its decisions
rather in advance of you waiting and seeing.
(Sir Malcolm Field) What I would say to you is that
the mechanisms of the Competition Act and the Office of Fair Trading,
references of that nature, abuse of dominant position, are all
there for us to use.
297. I see. Have you in any way at any point
considered the effect of separation of the SRG on both your running
procedures and on relationships that you would have with a newly
formed company under the PPP?
(Mr Profit) If I may answer the question, Chairman.
298. Please.
(Mr Profit) We would hope that we would not see any
change in the way we regulate NATS. That works on the assumption
that there will not be any great change in the way NATS manages
safety because that is the other half of the equation. Right now
with all the intent that we see as we approach PPP, there are
no indications at all that will occur. We will be putting some
safeguards in place, and I will not go into the technical aspects
of those, to ensure that there is not a major change in the methodology
by which we do regulate NATS. I think that is all we need to do
right now. We are comfortable with the way we regulate NATS, it
is extremely effective. I think our immediate concern as we approach
the change in management, because that is what it will be, is
to maintain the current arrangements.
299. You do not think that the problems that
were experienced at Swanwick illustrate the fact that any major
complex investment projects are difficult to manage?
(Mr Profit) That will not affect the safety regulator.
We have tracked Swanwick's programme, we have done from the start.
The delay in Swanwick has meant primarily a capacity issue for
NATS. From the safety point of view, we would not permit a system
to go into service until we were convinced that it was adequately
safe for full operation. It has not had an impact at all on NATS
in terms of producing an unsafe service.
| 
